Category talk:Protected deleted pages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles in this category are oddly tantalizing. I mean, some of them are obviously stupid jokes and others are certainly vanity autobiographies or what have you, but others sound mysterious and intriguing. It's like... forbidden Wikipedia... —Keenan Pepper 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of these articles are about people. I guess there deleted because they are all shameless attacks on these people? People who are generally unknown to most Wikipedia users, and most of the time only known by the article creator. These articles will usually be about this guy and the article itself will state thats he gay or has herpes or something derogatory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.254.170.221 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC).
Contents |
[edit] Crawled?
Are the pages in this category crawled by search engines? I hope they aren't. --Thorpe | talk 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
They appear to be, look at the fourth result, Here.--SimCity4 06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Random Insanity
I really think that Random Insanity should be a page once more.
Why not? People need to blow off steam or are simply feeling a bit destructive all the time...
It's better than people vandalizing actual informative articles.
It should be just a...random insanity page.
And don't tell me that it degrades the Sacred Wiki of Light. Anyone who finds it trying to research something...it's their fault for looking up Random Insanity. Who the heck searches for 'random insanity' and is surprised when it actually is RaNdOm InSaNiTy?!
That's just my opinion...just don't mind me at all, I just spent 5 whole precious minutes of my irreplenishable life on this page for no reason whatsoever...
Sincerely, Flameviper12 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is an immature version of me, who had just discovered bold text and was now running rampant with it. That, and I knew how to make those weird box things. ~ Flameviper 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Backlog?
The reason for the backlog is given as "Pages which have been in this category for two months should be deleted unless they have previously been the focus of long-lasting campaigns to re-create material which has been validly deleted."
First off, is there any need to do this?- if there is a good reason to create an article {{editprotected}} can be used.
Second, if there is a good reason to do this, is there any easy way of doing so- like sorting (bot?) by date the deleteprotected tag was added? Petros471 15:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Will special:random find these?
Will Special:random find pages in this category? Picaroon9288|ta co 01:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunetly, yes, it is possible.Voice-of-All 01:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The whole point of doing this?
What is the point of deleting a page, then protecting it?
Okay, i understand if it's a shameless attack on someone, but a serious topic?
I've created serious articles while logged in, and had them deleted/protected, I'm slowly starting to see why people vandalize this site...
most of the articles ive created have been on bands one of the more outrageous to delete is T3CHN0PH0B1A there is little information on the band, but their big enough to where they warrent an article
Unfortunatly i couldnt use their official website etc, because it gives a bunch of bullshit information, such as claiming their from the year 3001 (inside joke among fans)
granted the first time it was created it wasnt worthy of being an article, but the second time, it shouldve been made a stub or something (fairly small article, but ive seen smaller)
Dont say its because theyre not a big band, ive seen articles on more obscure bands/things...
71.98.16.172 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 06:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Protected titles
You might be looking for the new replacement method for doing this, Wikipedia:Protected titles. It lets the pages really be deleted, but still be protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.128.189.190 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
