Those that like this idea may want to check out WP:PURE. If implemented, pure wiki deletion would give us deletion transparency, so any user could help patrol recent deletions. Friday (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. George Gerbner (undeletion log: Special:Undelete/George Gerbner) - proposer of Cultivation theory from where this article is linked. --- Charles Stewart 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Also mentioned in Media effects theory (unwikified). 5 bios prepared as part of a class [1] --- Charles Stewart 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Further bio, high quality [2] --- Charles Stewart 19:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that sure looks like a legit speedy to me. There's nothing stopping anyone from creating a proper article on this guy. Friday (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this patrol isn't to dispute speedies. We already have WP:DRV for that. It is to try to avoid losing information on clearly legit people. I saw this was leghit when I saw the page was linked to from several articles on WP already. --- Charles Stewart 19:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forget not everyone can see these. The content was "{{empty}}University of Pennsylvania". Friday (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I saw already, the undelete log summarised the article contents. The log also indicates that most of the content was deleted following a copyvio claim. I'd have put the article on requests for expansion myself, rather than deleted. --- Charles Stewart 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a stub for Gerbner. --- Charles Stewart 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who deleted it, sorry about that, I should have done more research and checked the links first. Still getting the hang of being an admin.--Alhutch 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. CARA utility (Special:Undelete/CARA utility) - appears to be legitimate concept in economic theory, deleter gave no grounds for deletion except citing material apparently in keeping with established usage. Maybe copyvio?

• Description at History of Economic Thought website (an excellent resource, btw). It's in section C, on Arrow-Pratt risk aversion measures. --- Charles Stewart 20:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What's visible in the log doesn't appear on Google, so copyvio is unlikely. Should be undeleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at WP:DRV, and notified the speedying admin. --- Charles Stewart 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So this page is really for complaining that a three word article such as the first listed on this talk page is somehow not speediable. Then, no, I won't spend any time here. -Splash^talk 22:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments have been advanced for either case that the speedy guidelines were not followed (though in the second case I would have preferred if the edit summary made clear on what grounds the speedy was performed). They are just two things I found on the deletion log that rung a bell and I listed here whilst I gathered information about them. This is a talk page, not a page for appealing process. --- Charles Stewart 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, yes. I was too harsh. I just want people to remember that an admin is not being abusive, nor acting out of process or malice if they delete such an article as the first one here. Googling may well yield something, but that doesn't mean such a speedy was necessarily wrong: it does mean that a stub would have been the better choice. Alhutch apologises for that deletion; I don't think it was necessary from him/her to do so since it was plainly a zero-effort untersubstublet. If this page can be used to juice the deletion log without haranguing admins who are not misbehaving (and that's not to say that some do and that others make mistakes and they should be politely harangued when they do) then I think it will serve a useful purpose. But it should not become an admin-whipping post just because we discover which university some possible human being might or might not have, had or be about to have some association (or not) with. -Splash^talk 00:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The idea (as conceived by Tony) is absolutely not to be a PITA to the patrolling admins who speedy something that shouldn't have been. If they did it lots, it might be worth a note - David Gerard 00:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, on the point about the deletion log: I have not managed to determine when MediaWiki does/not fill that in automagically. For very short articles it does, and for some articles it truncates the content into the summary. Other times, it doesn't do anything, and I'm not sure when/why. Perhaps it fills the box with the whole article if it can, as much as fits if that leaves not much unmentioned and, if it would leave a lot out, doesn't bother at all. Of course, the deleting admin should give a reason anyway. -Splash^talk 00:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. This page is not designed to be a pain in the arse for those on newpages patrol - quite the opposite. It's so that patrollers don't need to agonise, because anything that really shouldn't have been speedied has people looking out to catch and restore it. The idea is less red tape, not more. Anyone trying to use it as an Idiot Stick (the idiot being the wielder) is missing the point big time. See Jimbo's note on the subject. - David Gerard 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been known to disagree with Tony on deletion from time to time, but if this page is used as advertized I think it's a great thing, and I'm glad to help. Now can I ask how we go about coordinating? Or do we just independently wade through the deletion logs and discuss what we find? -- SCZenz 02:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]