Klaus_Brähmig (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Maria_Böhmer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wolfgang_Börnsen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

"04:31, 21 September 2009 NuclearWarfare deleted "Klaus Brähmig" / Maria Böhmer / Wolfgang Börnsen ‎ "(Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a real person that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject. using TW) However, these were valid stubs on conservative, German, acting MPs, created by user:Jared Preston. The following articles (also all German conservative MPs) are logged to have been speedy deleted by only author user:Jared Preston's request. -- Seelefant (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf_Brauksiepe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Michael_Brand_(politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wolfgang_Bosbach (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Jochen_Borchert (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Antje_Blumenthal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Peter_Bleser (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Clemens_Binninger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Otto_Bernhardt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Christoph_Bergner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Ernst-Reinhard_Beck (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wolf_Bauer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Norbert_Barthle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Thomas_Bareiß (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Peter_Altmaier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Peter_Albach (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Ulrich_Adam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Günter_Baumann (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• Comment: can someone bundle those 20 DRVs together? I must confess that I've never seen 20 entries in a single day like this. Tim Song (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. -- Seelefant (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Note: this applies to all 20 DRVs.) Speedy endorse all CSD G7 deletions, with leave to recreate, which in those cases is quite self-evident - the deleted revisions may be restored if necessary. Endorse the CSD A7 deletions of Klaus Brähmig and Wolfgang Börnsen with leave to recreate - as far as I can see from the cached version, there's no indication of significance whatsoever (it basically just says that XX is a politician and a member of YY party). Overturn speedy deletion with respect to Maria Böhmer, without prejudice to AfD at editorial discretion. The cached version indicates that she is a member of the Bundestag, which is a indication of significance, and therefore the article is not speedy-able. Tim Song (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Striking - this is apparently much more complicated than I thought... Tim Song (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Have a look at the cached versions again. All 20 Articles were (correctly) categorized as members of Bundestag (Parliament). These are all acting MPs from one party. I have no idea why they were deleted, btw four days before the german elections. -- Seelefant (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I'm not familiar with the rule that any author may request speedy deletion of article space material just because he created it himself. I would think that this should be limited to obvious glitches, and not to erasing whole scores of articles like in this case. I would expect from an adminstrator that in such a case he would look into the circumstances and maybe simply ask for the reason why these articles should be deleted. Also, it is peculiar that all these MP stubs start with "A" and "B". Maybe there's more? Could an admin please look into the deleted edits of user:Jared Preston whether there are more deleted stubs on MPs? -- Seelefant (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:CSD G7, an editor may request speedy if s/he is the only major contributor. I didn't see the categories - though I can't really blame the deleting admin, since, well, I didn't see them. I'm not sure if we have a precedent that says inclusion in a category is (or is not) good enough for A7 purposes, that's an interesting question, but probably moot. Also, if you discussed this with the deleting admins beforehand, they probably would have restored them anyway. Why don't you go to WP:REFUND and ask if they can restore those articles? Tim Song (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I filed a request at WP:REFUND. Tim Song (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I wasn't aware of that page. All those meta-pages with templates and stuff are quite overwhelming. -- Seelefant (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediately restore all 20 articles. These people pass WP:POLITICIAN by a country mile, it is four days before the German general election and we cannot allow even the appearance that tactical deletion from Wikipedia is being employed for political purposes. Individual Wikipedians should not be allowed to withdraw their contributions from the encyclopaedia in cases where the subject is of such primary importance. No prejudice against the AfD process, but the speedy was clearly invalid.

  The "no indication of importance" thing is potentially deeply embarrassing. This is the kind of issue that leads to Wikipedia being criticised on the front page of national newspapers.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it's 4 days after the elections. But the conservatives won, so no one will sue WP ;) -- Seelefant (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Prior discussions on this can be seen here: User talk:Xeno/Archive 18#Category:German Christian Democratic Union politician stubs and User talk:Jennavecia/Archive 55#Your deletion of German politicians. Executive summary: Dr. Blofeld (now Himalayan Explorer) requested deletion of the unreferenced formulaic sub-stubs he created on these politicians. The ones started by Jared should be restored because as far as I know he did not request deletion and thus G7 is inapplicable. –xeno^talk 15:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:(edit conflict)x4 I do not know under which circumstances Jared requested their deletion, and I did not spot any more deleted articles. It should be noted that some of these were created back in 2006. I find it puzzling that they were suddenly deleted now, just before the elections. As for criterion A7, if the article credibly indicates the importance or significance of the subject, it should not be deleted under that criterion. I am unfamiliar with German politics, but being a member of the Bundestag is an "indication of significance" in my book (and probably notability, too). decltype (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comment immediately above yours. FWIW I don't think the proximity to the election had anything to do with it, Blofeld/Himalayan has been recently conducting cleanup work of this nature across diverse subject areas. –xeno^talk 15:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)xN On the assumption that all 17 G7s are wrong, then they should of course be restored. On the assumption that placement in a category can constitute an indication of significance without any corresponding support in the text, all three A7s should be overturned as well. Tim Song (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from deleting sysop: Feel free to undelete any of those articles (I would have happily done so had you consulted with me beforehand). As Xeno mentions, I went through about 1500-2000 articles, trying to see which matched the description that Blofeld said his articles were, and deleting those per author request. If you are willing to work on any of those, please feel free to undelete/recreate them; if there were any that were not originally created by Blofeld, feel free to just undelete those. I think I ended up deleting around a thousand articles or so, so there are bound to be a few mistakes. My apologies for any trouble this caused, NW (Talk) 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]