- Debris documentar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Please restore my article. I was out of home so I did not have time to contest your deletion and only saw it now. To reiterate: I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-a-vis notability/importance over there (and I added references to reliable sources), plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. As for content: no, it was not vandalism. I realize the film's content is, to put it mildly, not everyone's cup of tea, yet, everything described in the text actually happened in the film. I have worked hard on this entry: Please reply ASAP. 79.183.203.120 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and trout the deleting admin. The reason given in the deletion log was "Please review content. No indication of importance, verges on vandalism", which is what the tagger wrote. That kind of implies it was an A7 deletion, but the article was about a film and A7 does not apply to films. Even if A7 did apply to films the article cited a couple of sources which should have circumvented this. I don't remotely see how this could possibly be vandalism. Granted, the content of the film is obviously rather disgusting (it's about cannibalism), but that certainly doesn't make it vandalism. Hut 8.5 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Can you please kindly help me restore it?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- When this discussion is closed the closer will make a decision as to whether to restore the page based on what was written in the discussion. Hut 8.5 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and take to WP:AFD. Unfortunately we don't have speedy-delete criteria for non-notable films, so AFD is the only venue for deleting them. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to have been a {{subst:prod}} deletion (though I'm not an admin so I can't check for sure). I'm not sure why the WP:REFUND discussion was closed in favor of this one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a PROD deletion, it was a deletion in response to a CSD tag that included the rationale "Please review content. No indication of importance, verges on vandalism." That isn't a valid rationale for a CSD nomination or subsequent CSD deletion. We don't generally overturn CSD decisions at WP:REFUND, and I felt it best if one admin didn't unilaterally revert the action of another admin (especially RHaworth whom I respect), so I preferred a consensus at DRV. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The deleted article certainly includes WP:Offensive material, but that's not a WP:CSD. The deletion log doesn't say which WP:CSD this was deleted under, so we're left to guess. If, as conjectured above, it was meant to be WP:A7, then it doesn't apply. Just because it's offensive and disturbing doesn't mean it's vandalism. And, it does have a reference to what looks to be (via the auto-translation) a legitimate movie review in what I presume is a WP:RS. I doubt this will survive WP:AfD, but it's not CSD material. If we do keep it, I would hope we can find some way to describe the film without listing every gross and disturbing plot detail. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a CSD tag with a manually-edited rationale. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn with a trout to the deleting admin. CSD isn't a good place for IAR. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Original deleter did not reply to my message yet. When can one restore the entry? Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV tends to be a "slow zone" with speedy closes being rare. Assume it will run the full week. Sorry, but as the "last stop" for dealing with deletion issues there is a sense that it's better to get it right than get it fast. Hobit (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They replied now and still seem very hostile for some reason: "Consider yourself lucky that I am talking to an IP address. So why did you not link to the German version? And yes they do have a problem - have you read the hat note to it? So which of the cited sources even mentions this movie? Try again via AfC if you must." Here is what I wrote back: "German version from which I translated is here. Here is the main source I cited which discusses the film at length. Four editors have by now replied over at deletion review and all said the original reasoning for deletion was spurious." You can see the tagger's comments here.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am the person who put the CSD tag on the article. To clarify, I did not use or intend to use A7 as a deletion reason. Anti-vandalism patrollers observed the addition of content like:
- "...He indulges in several disturbing sexual fetishes, including defecating, urinating, necrophilia, bestiality, anal fisting, rape, murder, nose-picking... who puts an enema into her anus and defecates into a bucket, while placing the man onto a table and shoving her fist into his anus, pulling defecate out of there .... he is sexually aroused by her corpse. He cuts her nipples off in graphic detail and uses his scalpel to cut the dead woman's clitoris off. He then takes the scalpel and peels the skin off one of her fingers and eats the pieces of dismembered skin... stabbed multiple times in extremely graphic detail. Blood splatters onto Rafael, who is killing her. He then proceeds to ram a knife into her vagina, followed by him taking the knife and stabbing her entrails open, as he rips them from her abdomen..."
- I was told about this in IRC, after review we decided it was probably accurate (this film is disgusting). In the absence of a button to summon admins to examine a page, I decided to use a CSD tag with a custom rationale (db) to get an admin to look at the page. It was discussed and decided that sending a page like this to AfD would be the wrong thing to do given the content. I am not adverse to it being restored but would kindly ask whoever does so to Revdel it back to its less graphic state (which did pass AfC). There is no real reason to explain the plot with this level of graphic detail, given that Wikipedia pages are read by children and carry no warnings. Not even Paraphilia or Sexual intercourse go into this level of detail. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As I wrote on your talk page, I have no problem with removing/modifying the most graphic parts after the entry is restored. Everyone here is more than welcome to help me with this endeavor.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- <ec>Doesn't WP:NOTCENSORED apply here? I've no objection to editing out excessive plot details. But we don't put warning labels on things or edit away things because they are offensive. I can't see the history, but reverting excessive plot would have been a good first step. Net effect, the CSD tagging was suboptimal, the CSD deletion was _very_ suboptimal and requests to clean up the article before it's restored are unlikely to get traction. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't use deletion requests with something like a deletion rationale to "get an admin to look at the page". The template you added should only be used if you are requesting that the page be speedily deleted. There are plenty of mechanisms for you to bring a page to the attention of an admin without nominating it for deletion, e.g. {{adminhelp}} or WP:AN. Whether we want to modify the graphic description is open for discussion but I don't see how it falls under the revdel criteria, the only one which even vaguely applies is RD2 and that excludes factual content. You could just have removed that bit or reverted to an earlier version if you wanted to remove it instead of nominating the page for deletion. The deleting admin did make a much worse mistake by actually deleting the page with this rationale though. Hut 8.5 17:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What happens if the original deleter refuses to restore the article despite all that is being said here?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- When the discussion is closed then if the consensus is to restore the article then the article will be restored, whether the deleting admin likes it or not. Hut 8.5 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn db-custom doesn't apply the second good faith editors consider it to be controversial. That's happened here, so its best to overturn. Feel free to take it to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Google, by the way, managed to cache the article before it was deleted, in case someone wants to read it.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding WP:NOTCENSORED applying, also keep in mind WP:Offensive material, which says, Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Let's assume for the moment that this goes to AfD and ends up getting kept. Then, the next question is whether toning down the current language and graphical depictions would make the article less informative, relevant, or accurate? I'm pretty sure we could find some way to word this which makes it completely clear what the film depicts with being quite so literal in its descriptions. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn with trout, deletion imposed completely outside of the deliberately narrow scope we allow speedy for, and not the first instance of this in recent times, either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn No valid reason for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse my deletion. OK movies cannot be deleted under A7 but is worth restoring it just to have it deleted at AfD? RoySmith, please check the sole reference in the article. Yes, it's a movie review but is it of this article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As I already noted in my original reply to you (reprinted above), I cited two sources in my article, not one, including this book which discusses the film at length. After the entry is restored, will the talk page be restored too? And, sorry for the double posting over at undeletion. I should like to add that this deleter is arguing in bad faith, viz. their hostility towards me and blatantly false insistence that I only cited one source in the article, and, they continute to make snarky and hostile comments against me on their talk page, the latest: "I wonder if you will ever learn about wikilinks," strange given how I used them in the original article. It seems almost as if they have some vendetta against me: They're probably simply outright lying for their case against me and should be monitored and taken with a grain of salt for their decision regarding the case in the future.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, until we have a CSD reason for movies, it's worth restoring to have a community decision at AFD rather than a unilateral decision decision based on a misapplied deletion rationale. If deleted at AFD, it cannot be restored by a request to WP:REFUND, and any recreation qualifies for WP:G4 speedy deletion. That is not the case at the moment. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So, will this article be restored today? Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- At some point within the next day or two an uninvolved administrator will assess the consensus and take the appropriate action. As a side note, and speaking with no real concern for IP editing, if you create an account you can get access to a number of features that will make it easier to keep track of discussions as they happen such as a personal watchlist and the ability to receive email notifications when changes to a page occur. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to revdel This is basic deletion theory, that we don't delete articles that can be repaired with revdel. Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per above comments. This is better handled by editing the article content or, if necessary, AFD. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I should like to thank everyone who came to support me in this. Tomorrow is a week since I opened this claim, so, in accordance with Wiki policy, I am looking forward for the discussion to end and for the article to be deftly restored given the consensus.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
