Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 120

Archive 115

←

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

→

Archive 125

Patrick M. McCarthy

• Patrick M. McCarthy · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

I am requesting full restoration of this article's revision history.

There is a discussion, at Meta, over the problems posed by paid editors, and those with a conflict of interest. I'd like to cite problematic edits made to this article, and I can't do so, because its contribution history, has been obfuscated, for reasons I'd like to explain here, but can't really, because the explanation offered to me didn't make sense.

(1) The suppressed portion of the history of this article shows it was targeted by a series of vandals; (2) The suppressed portion of the history of this article contains this edit -- the only time I made an edit at the direct request of a public affairs officer. This is the passage I most particularly want to discuss at Meta.

How did the early revisions come to be suppressed? One of the individuals who tried blanking the article, and other forms of disruption, eventually read some wikidocuments, and nominated the article for deletion. That AFD closed as no consensus. Shortly thereafter however administrator User:CIreland deleted the article, explaining in WP:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log that they were asserting the authority to summarily delete the article under WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs.

WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs says "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." But, as near as I can recall, the only "policy" they were willing to state the article violated was WP:COATRACK -- which of course if not a policy, and is more often misquoted than quoted correctly. The advice of the COATRACK essay is that concerns over COATRACK should first be addressed by regular editing, and attempts at discussion, and that deletion should be a last resort.

Over on Commons village pump I sought advice about the strange claims the nominator had made on the original Talk:Patrick M. McCarthy, providing diffs to them, which are now broken, so I am also requesting a complete restoration of the talk page as well. -Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log, the sanctions on this article have expired. I have restored the deleted contribution history. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Heather Taves

• Heather Taves · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The content of the article clearly indicated the importance and the likely notability of the subject. The article lacked references, and had been tagged to that effect, but the public accomplishments of the subject detailed in the article meant that those references were likely forthcoming in short order. The article was deleted within 1/2 hour of the speedy deletion tag being applied (overly hasty in my opinion). Please undelete so that the article creator (and I) can continue to improve the article. Please see WP:CHANCE. -Dwpaul ^Talk 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Dwpaul ^Talk 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to discuss this with the deleting administrator Alexf (talk · contribs), and list the credible claims of notability that were in the article that would disqualify it from WP:CSD#A7. You might want to request him to WP:USERFY the article to your user space so you can work on it at your leisure without concern about deletion, before you move it back to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Dwpaul/Heather Taves.. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)