Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brandenn Bremmer

Deletion and reversion of project page
At 00:44, 2005 May 7, Mirror Vax deleted the entire content of the VfD project page with the edit summary removed because article being voted on was already deleted, current one is brand new.

Much of the discussion in the previous two series of votes pertained to the notability, etc., of Brandenn Bremmer and was not specific to the particular article. I've therefore reverted the project page to its final state before unilateral deletion by Mirror Vax. -- Hoary 02:42, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
 * Leaving the old discussion would be confusing, since it applied to an article that no longer exists. The article was deleted without the vote being completed, anyway, because it was (I guess) a copyvio. Mirror Vax 04:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, leaving the old discussion is potentially confusing, as it does indeed apply to articles that no longer exist. However, deleting the old discussion deletes a lot of argument over whether Bremmer merits an article. You're very welcome to create a non-copyright-violating article, and to announce this in the VfD; moreover, I see nothing wrong in using markup to make this clearer, much as I have done. Thanks to this announcement (plus perhaps a bit of markup), there'll be little or no confusion over which article is being discussed. Meanwhile, please don't delete contributions to VfD pages, no matter how wrongheaded they seem to be. (Destructive vandalism should be reverted, of course, and large additions of indisputably irrelevant material can be reverted too.) -- Hoary 04:28, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
 * I moved the discussion of the deleted article to "Brandenn Bremmer (copyvio)". You can start a new VfD with a May 7 date if you must. Mirror Vax 04:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I did it for you. Mirror Vax 05:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is still out of process. Chris talk back 23:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This is all out of order. If the article was deleted after the first vote, then why was there a second vote? Why was it deleted before time after the second vote? If the second vote was closed, those votes cannot be transferred to the new VfD. But if it was closed before time, or in any other way, "illegally," then it was never closed and the votes count. As for the first vote, those votes do not count because they were back in March, and are irrelevant to what's happening now, though both VfDs should be linked to on this new VfD page. Who was the admin who oversaw these VfDs, does anyone know? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * There wasn't one. Mirror Vax moved the second VfD unilaterally.  There should not even be a third VfD - we should still be on the second. Chris talk back 00:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone said the article had been deleted after the second VfD, so an admin must have done that, or did I misunderstand? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I looked at the deletion history. Chris, it seems you placed a speedy delete on this on May 6, and Filiocht deleted it a few hours later. I'm going to ask Filiocht why he did that as there was a VfD going on, but Chris, can I ask you why you put the speedy delete tag on it given that there was a VfD in progress? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Recreation of previously deleted content. Had an admin check the deleted version of the article, and they matched.  Not to mention that the article was a copyvio.  Twice.  Chris talk back 00:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, that probably shouldn't have been done with a VfD in progress, though I understand why you did it. I've left a note for Filiocht. This is so confusing now that we almost couldn't trust any vote, because there's a sense in which it's unfair to count the second VfD (because the current contents are not the same as the one previously voted on), and also a sense in which it's unfair not to count them (because otherwise it will mean editors having to vote on this again, and many may not want to repeat their votes).


 * My suggestion is a third route: that Mirror Vax agrees to withdraw this article, we delete it to return to the status quo ante, we rewrite it (on a user subpage) in an encyclopedic way with good references; then we propose it on Votes for Undeletion. Would that work for people here? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fine, up as far as status quo ante - which is where I think we should stop and leave it. There's already been three VfDs on it.  To take it any further would be taking the piss slightly (no offence).  Can't we just let this one die?  Three polls is enough.  To recreate the article a fourth time is entirely unfair on the voters on VfD, not to mention creating work for people who could instead be impropving articles on subjects already here, and new subjects that are actually worthy of inclusion.  As is said in the discussion, continually recreating this article for people to vote on is inclusion by attrition, not inclusion on merit, which is something which should not be allowed.  Chris talk back 01:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd normally agree with you, as I also don't like to see the same article coming back time and again, but in this case I can imagine a really interesting, well-written piece coming out of this, and a Vote for Undeletion isn't ignoring community consensus, but simply taking the next step and asking them to reconsider. Also, we couldn't ask Mirror Vax to withdraw it voluntarily unless it was clear that he could put it up for a VfU. I do think VfU is a more appropriate step than continually recreating and having VfDs. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted the second one because it was a copyvio as well as a recreation of a deleted article. Sorry if this has caused confusion, but it seemed a reasonable thing to do at the time. I can only suggest that if anyone wants to save the page they recreate it as a non-copyvio stub with an explanatory note on the talk page and them bring that stub here for voting. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, Filiocht, you did the right thing, and what has happened is basically what you said: someone has brought a new non-copyvio stub here for voting. The question now is whether to include any of the old votes from the previous VfD. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think not, given that the copyvio issue, which may have featured in previous votes, is now dead. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:17, May 9, 2005 (UTC)