Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) (2nd nomination)

please undelete this page as it is needed for attribution (for the split at Rambot and for the selective content copied to List of Wikipedia controversies). This is pathetic lapse of administrative judgement on your part. Did you not see the comments by multiple editors saying that the page must not be deleted? 103.6.159.71 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if it needs attribution, what's wrong with en:User:Derek Ramsey ?
 * CannibalSnacks (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Two reasons:
 * There are multiple contributors that need attribution.
 * This is a copyright violation. See Copying_within_Wikipedia.
 * The method of proper attribution is to make one or more dummy edits containing the attribution information. This should have been done by the closing admin. -- RM 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The consensus was very clear here. There were in fact no "keep" !votes at all, and a large number of "delete" !votes, with which I agreed. Before you remind me that AfD is not a vote, let me point out that in my opinion the arguments put forward for deletion were overwhelming. A comment asking for retention is in no sense binding, but is weighed by the closing admin against and with all the other expressed opinions. I note your opinion of my judgement; it does not affect my opinion of the judgement of the community on this article.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually since that article is based on a previous version of this article we need to either delete Rambot or we need to undelete this and merge the history over there. Our license requires it, it is one of the reasons that copy/pasting between articles is problematic. This is not a keep/delete thing, this is a copyright thing. I may be wrong about the finer details of this, it may be enough that the page history existed at the time of forking, but I think people need to be able to find it. I was involved in the AfD so I won't be doing it. HighInBC 15:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not argue with the comments here regarding copyright, which I had under-valued in the AfD, but I will point out that among others both HighInBC and RM recommended unconditional deletion. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys, WP:DRV is thataway. ansh 666 23:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * When I said "This is not a keep/delete thing, this is a copyright thing" I meant just that. AfD is about if we keep and article under a given title or not, if we have other work based on it we still need to keep a record somewhere. This is a separate issue unrelated to the validity of the close(which I agree with).


 * Now we are talking about attribution. Me suggesting that this be history merged with the article based on it is in no way contradicting my position that it should have been deleted. If the article based on it goes to AfD I may very well offer a similar opinion. Regardless, we need to have an intact edit history showing the basis for our articles, and when an article is based on another that history needs to be available too. This is routine license maintenance and should not be controversial. HighInBC 01:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: Rambot is now a redirect, with no edit history of the forked article, so I guess there are no licensing issues here. List_of_Wikipedia_controversies might be different though. Is there really no way to retrieve the edit history other than undeleting? Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have said, I am not arguing. What needs to be done? Undelete the article in entirety and go from there, or what? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've undeleted the history and now stored it at which alleviates any copyright issues at List of Wikipedia controversies (and I've updated the template at that article's talk page). The history could be kept anywhere as long as it's visible somewhere and it seemed sensible to have it at a location where someone might reasonably expect it to be. Let me know if there are any problems but it should be fine. Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible. I was planning on doing some expanding to both merge targets but was waiting for the AfD to end.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sorry if I saw disagreement where there was none. HighInBC 16:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Jenks24 has solved all remaining attribution issues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Attribution issues may have been solved but what happened to the article at Rambot? Where was the consensus to delete it? deleted it for the sake of eliminating "copyright nightmare". I don't see how it "violated the consensus at Wikipedia :Articles for deletion/Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian)". The AfD did not have any discussion on what needs to be done about Rambot (despite WjBscribe's urging people to discuss it). In fact, there were just two comments that made any mention of Rambot, and both were against deletion. Davey2010 "Ironically you could argue the bot deserves the article and not the bloke running it" - that was before Rambot was split out, and Leprof 7272 who said, "I vote in favour of deleting this page, and maintaining Rambot and a section at Controversies". 103.6.159.86 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You forked content on the eve of deletion. Jenks24 solution is an acceptable option from an attribution aspect, but one of the two had to happen owing to the way you went about things. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The forking was not done on the eve of deletion. The discussion was open for a good 5 days after the forking. Isn't a fresh AfD necessary? 103.6.159.86 (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "On the eve of deletion" may not be temporally true, but at that point it was virtually sure the article would end up being deleted. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true; I spoke clearly and directly for deletion of Rambot as well, and gave what I consider a clear reason there. You can't copy an article that's about to be deleted to a new name, refocus it, and demand a new AFD. If people had thought this article should have been moved to Rambot instead of deleted, they would have said so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are putting words in 's mouth. What he said was that the bot was more notable than the person, but it does not imply the bot was notable enough. He may think Rambot is notable, but maybe not. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 's right - I wasn't implying the bot was notable and even if the bot did have an article I still probably would've gone with delete, Personally I agree with the history-merge, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I am not interested in pursuing this any further, since this place is so full of deletionists. 103.6.159.66 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)