|
'''Thealogy''' is literally the study of the [[Goddess]] ([[Greek language|Greek]] θεά, ''thea'', "goddess" + λόγος, ''logos'', "study"). In [[1993]], [[Charlotte Caron]]'s definition of '''thealogy''' as "reflection on the divine in feminine and feminist terms" appeared, but the term actually originates in the writings of [[Isaac Bonewits]] in [[1974]].
[[Category:Wikipedia deletion]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:削除の復帰依頼]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Request_for_undeletion]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:恢复条目投票]]
[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance]]
<!-- I know they're often at the bottom, but putting the cat and interlang at the top keeps me from deleting them off the bottom when I clear the old stuff. -->{{Shortcut|[[WP:VFU]]}}{{Deletiontools}}
==First uses==
Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrators]] if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] and [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy|undeletion policy]].
===First(?) usages===
The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on [[8 June]] [[2004]] are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on [[3 December]] [[2003]].
In "The Druid Chronicles (Evolved)," privately published in [[1976]], Isaac Bonewits used "thealogian" to refer to a Wiccan author ([[Aidan Kelly]], aka "C. Taliesin Edwards," who may have given him the term or vice versa) and "theilogy" (defined as "the study of more than one God"). Bonewits also used "theilogy" (and possibly "thealogy," since he thinks he coined them at the same time) in the pages of the widely-distributed "Gnostica" magazine he edited in 1974 and [[1975]].
'''If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and do so.''' You don't have to get the stub undeleted, and as long as your new version has content it should not be redeleted. If it is, then you should list it here.
"The Druid Chronicles (Evolved)" were a three-year project starting in 1974 and finished (published) in 1976. The article referred to within "The Druid Chronicles (Evolved)" is dated to the summer of 1976. Moreover, this is almost certainly not the first usage; the context of "thealogian" is in citing a work by C. Taliesin Edwards, "Essays towards a Meta''thealogy'' of the Goddess." [stress added] There is, however, a possibility that Bonewits altered the name of the work to fit with his terminology. He is attempting to track this down. Kelley himself has said to Bonewits that he can't remember which of the two of them said "thealogy" to the other first.
== Purpose of this page ==
It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:
In [[1976]], [[Valerie Saiving]], ending her "[[Androcentrism]] in Religious Studies" made a much quoted invocation that yearns towards something as yet undefined-
# People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because it was deleted without being listed on VfD. Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion.
# Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
#*As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using [[Special:Export]], and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the [[m:MediaWiki_roadmap|import]] feature is completed.
:''it is just possible that the unheard testimony of that half of the human species which has for so long been rendered inarticulate may have something to tell us about the holy which we have not known - something which can finally make us whole.''
This page is about ''articles'', not about ''people''. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators]]. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.
::(Saiving 1976:197)
===Second(?) usage ===
== History only undeletion ==
In "The Changing of the Gods" 1979:96, [[Naomi Goldenberg]] selfconsciously introduces the term as a half whimsical possibility, an inspirational comment, not a prelude to exegesis. She does not go on to define what thealogy might be, other than the implicit femininity of the coinage. This lack was perhaps because at that time the very assertion of a serious feminist analysis of religion was virtually unheard of, and the introduction of the concept was an excitingly powerful, but vague, possibility.
History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on [[Fred Flintstone]], it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on ''Fred Flintstone''. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the ''Fred Flintstone'' article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.
<!-- New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== -->
This is not to say that both Goldenberg and Saiving do not both offer extremely solid chunks of thealogy, but they do not give an overview of something to which they were midwives.
=== 26 August ===
====Bonewits [[Osamu Tezuka]] =again===
Also in [[1979]], in the first revised edition of "Real Magic," Bonewits defined "thealogy" in his Glossary this way: "Intellectual speculations concerning the nature of the Goddess and Her relations to the world in general and humans in particular; rational explanations of religious doctrines, practices and beliefs, which may or may not bear any connection to any religion as actually conceived and practiced by the majority of its members." While the last clause was his editorializing, the majority of the definition was adapted by removing sexist assumptions from a dictionary then in his library. Also in the same glossary, he defined "theology" and "theoilogy" (spelled correctly this time) with nearly identical words, changing the pronouns appropriately. He has since dropped the use of "theoilogy" in favor of "polytheology," also first published by him in the 1974 "Druid Chronicles."
The article was copy&pasted to the incorrect title [[Tezuka Osamu]], the original deleted in violation of the procedures by [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]], and the copy moved back. Please fix. -- [[User:Naive cynic|Naive cynic]] 08:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
In [[2003]] he pointed out that "thealogy" is an obvious coinage that may have been invented many times, and that feminist scholars are unlikely to have been familiar with his writings.
:Fixed. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 15:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
=== Growing usage by Carol Christ and Ursula King ===
== Temporary undeletion ==
<!-- New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== -->
[[Carol Christ]] used the term more substantially in "Laughter of Aphrodite" [[1987]].
In [[1989]] [[Ursula King]] notes its growing usage as a fundamental departure from traditional male-oriented theology, characterised by its privileging of symbols over rational explanation. She chronicles sympathetically that-
:''most writing on the Goddess, when not historical, is either inspirational or devotional, and a systematically ordered body of thought, even with reference to symbols, is only slowly coming into existence.''
== Votes for undeletion ==
::(1989:126-127)
== Further expansion of thealogy by Starr* Saffa ==
===August 31===
====[[Patrick Haseldine]]====
This page was speedily deleted today at 12:29 without apparently any further comment or discussion on the talk page. It was not a re-post of the article that was Vfd'd on August 27: today's entry was a major revision, which merited more than simply a bureaucratic deletion. I should be grateful if consideration could be given to its speedy undeletion. [[User:Phase1|Phase1]] 21:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment and request''' There was a decision to delete at [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Patrick Haseldine]]. However if the latest version was in fact significantly different from the version up for deletion, in ways that mean that the arguments made on that page might not apply, then they should not have been speedied. The discussion was generally over notability, so a new article ought to indicate reasons or evidence for notability not discussed in that debate. Mind you, that debate had 4 deelte votes and 5 keep votes, but 4 of the keeps were from users not logged in, and I presume the clsoer discounted them. Had I seenm this debate while it was live, I'm not at all sure how I would have voted. Would an admin please compare the relevent versions and let us know just how different the most recently deelted version is? [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
*:The version deleted today was substantially similar to the version deleted after the VfD vote. The last non-anon VfD vote was on the 20th, and there were edits to the article on the 25. I don't see any major differences between the verison that was listed for VfD, the version that was deleted on the 26th, and the version that was deleted on the 31st. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 22:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' - As far as I can tell it is the '''same identical article''' that was voted for deletion. Further comparison shows some paraphrasing within some sentences but essentially the same content and almost in the exact same order. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. If it was substantially identical, that's good enough for me since the VfD was fine. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' an interesting story and seems notable. I'm surprised it was VfDed. But I see no evidence that the deletion was improper. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 22:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Tahirih Thealogy
===August 30===
====[[Launie Anderssohn]]====
hello this is in accordance with laune anderssohn. i play in the band and have been playing with a notable rock band, the dears who are hugely successfull in not only north america but europe as well, playing to crowds of over 100 000 people at festivals, www.thedears.org for any info on validity. this is a notable group people, we are a band making waves and spreading rapidly, yet it seems the dears factor, the keep posts, the 2 countrieds toured, the three re
cords, the 800 plus hits on google, the records in radio stations across canada dont seem to matter in the voting process even thoughwe met all the criteria for being kept. this bearcat fellow does not seem to have any notability under his belt. yet he is still on this site, we are a hard working ground breaking band that has been deleted for what i believe is more the content of our music than the actual suggested reasons. please consider us for undeletion ([[User:65.94.191.240|65.94.191.240]] 04:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC))thank you
--[[User:65.94.191.240|65.94.191.240]] 04:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not exactly clear on which article you're requesting be considered for undeletion, but being associated with a notable band doesn't automatically make your band notable. Have a look at [[WP:MUSIC]] for some reasonable guidelines on what is and isn't considered notable by many.
:It should be noted that there isn't a notability requirement for working on wikipedia, or else we'd have very few contributors left. --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|<SMALL><FONT COLOR="green">*</FONT></SMALL>]] 04:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:'''Keep deleted''' Hello, 65.94.191.240. Just so you know, I voted against your article, and I've never heard your music, therefore, I, at least, wasn't voting against the content of your music, I just thought the article didn't belong in Wikipedia. I think that that's true with the other voters as well: I highly doubt that in an encyclopedia with articles on a number of extremely contentious subjects your independent band was deleted because of your songs' content. Just see the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Launie Anderssohn|VfD]] and you'll immediately get other reasons. As for getting it undeleted, you might consider getting yourself a username and using grammatically correct, punctuated sentences which begin with capitals, which will almost certainly give your opinions more weight.
The basic Definition of TheAlogy as opposed to Theology means viewing the world incorporating the Female lens which to a great extent in the past has been omitted in Theology.
:A (partial) case against the article as I see it:
:#It didn't have any evidence of notability on it except for your connection to the Dears (there was no mention of any tours, although that was brought up in the VfD itself, and whether or not the Dears were notable enough was contested, including by me).
:#From what I can see on [http://www.launieanderssohn.com/ your site], you havn't even signed a real record contract and are selling records out of a local record shop, Le Subalterne.
:#You're not listed on Allmusic.com.
:#The article didn't say that you toured, if you indeed did (it was mentioned in the VfD debate, however).
:#The VfD was heavily sockpuppeted, which in and of itself isn't a case, but it didn't help one bit.
:I think it speaks for itself, really. I would suggest that you ''read the VfD debate'' and stop saying that people are against you because they don't like what you have to say, accept it, get really famous, then come back here and write an article about it. But ''please'' remember that WP is not the place to advertise your band, it's an encyclopedia. --[[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] | [[User_talk:Blackcap|talk]] 05:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
*The Launie Anderssohn article was deleted despite furfilling at least one, and arguably two, of the criteria on [[WP:MUSIC]]; see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Launie Anderssohn]]. The debate centered on weather [[The Dears]] should be considered "extremely notable" or just plain "notable". What I think was ignored was that Launie Anderssohn has toured two countries, and should be considered notable on that basis. [[User:Farquard|Farquard]] 04:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Valid VfD, sockpuppet-supported. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT>]] 08:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Valid VfD - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 14:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
* Keep deleted. The claim that they "toured two countries" was never substantiated despite that statement being challenged early in the discussion. The closing admin was within reasonable bounds to discount that claim. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 21:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': The decision to segregate the accused "sockpuppet" comments was probably a mistake. Comments from new users may be noted as such but an overly hostile reaction to them tends to turn the discussion into a flamewar. The lesson for next time is that it might be better to quietly note the new user's contribution history and trust that the closing admin will weight the comment(s) appropriately. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]
*'''Keep deleted''', valid VfD. I agree with Rossami's comment — [[WP:GVFD]] is quite clear that all that is necessary is to tag them with "this users first edit" or some such. If I had spotted the segregation, I'd have gotten rid of it. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' Procedure was correctly followed. [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>☯</font>]] 01:39, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
Tahirih TheAlogy is religion beyond religion, politics beyond politics, and spiritual feminism beyond feminism in that it recognizes the Cosmic Christ Spirit in every individual and sets out the pattern of balance for the Sixth Cycle of humanity based on magnetic attraction vs. force and patriarchal constructs.
===August 29===
During the later part of 2004 Starr* Saffa introduced Tahirih Thealogy and the Tahirih Path in her book entitled “Tahirih Thealogy: Female Christ Spirit of the Age” based on the figure of the 19th Century Iranian born Prophet-Poetess Tahirih who was also known as Qurratu’l-ayn, and the return of Fatima.
==== [[KTF]] ====
KTF was deleted in due process, but the votes calling for it to be deleted were all prior to the page being entirely rewritten to the point where it suits Wikipedia's general standards for pages on corporations. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless]] [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]] 02:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per nom. [[User:Christopherparham|Christopher Parham]] [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 03:23, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
*'''Undelete the relevant revisions''' and take the result back to VfD. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 03:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. When I saw an article I recently killed was on VfU at first I was annoyed but then I read what you typed. Yes, undelete, though I'd like to reassert the VfD was closed correctly. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[User:JCarriker/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 03:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' [[User:Agriculture|Agriculture]] 03:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Rewritten during the VFD debate. Send back for a second VFD debate on the rewritten version. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete.''' Rewritten article deserves a fresh VfD discussion. I don't think our current process actually works well for the special case of an article that is "truly" rewritten ''just'' before close of VfD, or what a closing sysop ''should'' do in such a case. But there's probably no point in trying to create instruction creep for these cases; a nice, calm, civil VfU listing like this one works as well as anything. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*I see no harm in running it through another VfD, '''undelete'''. --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|<SMALL><FONT COLOR="green">*</FONT></SMALL>]] 14:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Tahirih taught that inner knowledge is trumps and Starr* Saffa says Tahirih TheAlogy has the potential to unite East and West where everyone can be living Tahirih’s in this day through the continuous flow of Spirit.
====[[The Flowers of Romance (band 2)]]====
I believe this should have gone through the [[WP:VFD|VFD]] process rather than being speedily deleted outright. While the subject may be guilty of perpetrating a hoax and using Wikipedia for self-promotion, I'm not sure that made this article a candidate for speedy deletion. There were Wikipedia articles in fifty-seven languages ([http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Hoax_Article_in_57_languages]), but note that there was at least an effort to keep the facts straight in the English version. '''Restore.''' -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 20:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. We have to vote on whether or not we should keep a hoax article? This is a no brainer. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 20:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. If it's an ''established'' hoax, why waste VfD time with it? What would be achieved? There might be no CSD for it, but there is also the application of common sense. If it's not a hoax, just a nn band, then it should go to VfD. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment:''' Agree that this is an '''nn''' issue. It is a band of questionable notability that uses falsehoods as part of its publicity. (But I'm not convinced that the band does not exist at all even if they're poseurs or liars.) This makes it an article ''about'' a hoax, but the article itself isn't necessarily a hoax. We wouldn't delete [[Milli Vanilli]] or [[Richard Nixon]] because those subjects were not forthright, -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog ]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 21:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Vandalism is a valid CSD. Hoaxes are vandalism. Village Pump article cited by sysop gives more than sufficient reason for judging the article to be a hoax and nobody has seriously suggested that it isn't. It's a good judgement call by the sysop. This is just a hoax. It's not an '''article about''' a '''notable''' hoax, so let's not go down ''that'' path. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 21:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
** '''Abstain''' but I disagree with the claim that this was a valid speedy-deletion. Hoaxes are a subtle form of vandalism but they are explicitly '''not''' speedy-deletion candidates. As individuals, we have a very poor track record of separating out the real hoaxes from the obscure but real topics. See [[user:Rossami#Reference list of "surprising" VfD discussions|here]] for a few examples where the nominator thought the article was a hoax but was later proven wrong. If they had been speedy-deleted, they would been lost without review. Some such obscure topics that we might not have gotten them back and the encyclopedia would have been poorer. As a ''community'', however, we are quite good at identifying hoaxes. That's what the full VfD process does well. The CSD case for vandalism is supposed to be restricted to obvious vandalism. Deletion as a hoax should never be done on a single opinion and does not qualify for the CSD case. Note: I am voting "abstain" because I think that the original speedy-deletion was in error but that sufficient evidence has been presented ''here'' to confirm that this is a hoax and that it would fail a full VfD discussion. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', hoax, and not a notable one. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 06:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Abstain'''. Thank you, Rossami, for bringing up a number of points which have irked me in dealing with speedy and VfD. I think it needs to be made more clear (don't ask me how) what constitutes an appropriate candidate for a speedy delete and what must go to VfD. The guidelines appear to be being ignored, for the most part. As far as this item goes, I believe it should have gone to VfD, and it would have failed. [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>☯</font>]] 01:46, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' Hoaxes are not CSD candadites, see [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Hoaxes and Fiction]] and [[User:Rossami|Rossami]]'s comments above. Let it go to VfD (or AfD or whatever the name is by the time it gets undeleted) for a full exposure. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
== Definition by Charlotte Caron ==
===August 25===
In [[1993]] Charlotte Caron's definition of thealogy as "reflection on the divine in feminine and feminist terms" appeared in "To Make and Make Again" (quoted from Russell & Clarkson 1996). By this time the concept had gained considerable (though conventionally marginal) status, broadly analogous to Ruether's view of radical feminist theology as opposed to reformist [[feminist theology]].
=== Melissa Raphael's view ===
====[[Template: Infobox SoftwareProduct]]====
In [[1997]] [[Melissa Raphael]] wrote "Thealogy & Embodiment" which put the usage firmly on the map, and which she sustained in her subsequent "Thealogy: Discourse on the Goddess" ([[1999]]?). Together with Carol Christ's "Rebirth of the Goddess" 1997 Raphael's work provides a start for the "systematically ordered body of thought" King found lacking in 1989.
I was shocked to find the template deleted while I was continuing discussions with the individual (minghong) that requested deletion within the day of creation of the template. Minghong had made only 1 comment compared to the many I have sent for him to comment on and used the false accusation of this template being a 'fork' of his own while looking at the template itself clearly shows otherwise (both templates displayed a varying level of information in a non-repetitive format). I have yet to see any real basis to his claims and he certainly doesn't want to give any -- as shown in my comments to which he has not responded and even to his own user talk page. Within the past few days I have placed a comment in his template, Infobox Software, and still have yet to see any sort of response (in addition to several comments I have made in the previous weeks). As far as I knew at the time only Minghong was requesting it's deletion and not that it was added to a 'delete list' that someone would eventually, without any attempt at consulting both parties, would delete.
== Three interpretations of thealogy ==
I find this quite disturbing that the article would be deleted without Minghong producing any true evidence that the template was a 'fork' of his own or even taking the time to find such evidence. Had I known that the deletion was circulated at additional places I would have made my case but I was not aware of such existence and equally due to the lack of response by Minghong himself. I would request undeletion at least until I can clearly make my case for the template. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. [[User:Quadra23|Quadra23]] {{timestamp}}
There are perhaps three distinct interpretations of thealogy, and they are evident in the briefing above.
*'''Keep deleted''' - It spent 15 days on [[WP:TfD]] with only a supporting "delete" vote. valid deletion. As for making your case, this is now the forum to develop a consensus to undelete it. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 14:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
*Christ, King and Raphael focus thealogy specifically on [[Goddess]] spirituality.
*Caron defines a broader field of a female worldview of the [[sacred]].
*Goldenberg's neologism as a political stance that marks the [[androcentrism]] of historical [[theology]] permeates the other two and raises its own issues.
=== Thealogy as Goddess spirituality ===
:Thank you, the purpose of the template, [[Template:Infobox SoftwareProduct]] was to show a clearer way (by usage of terminology in the template that is equated better to both development formats, essentially so that [[Template:Infobox Software]] could better apply to both closed-source and open-source applications with its detailed information. If Minghong is going to complain about 'two templates that serve similiar purposes' why then does he not complain about [[Template:Infobox_Software2]]?? Within the day of first formulation user, Minghong, had simply launched accusations with no intent of knowing if his accusations were correct or not and immediately rid any usage (when the pages it was applied to clearly had no infobox in place until I placed the box on the pages as a demonstration), and without any consultation he immediately requested deletion. Since then he has made only one comment which comes across as a form of 'hasty anger'. Nothing against Minghong himself, mind you, but the process and haste in which he 'rushed' for things to be done shows he had no intention for knowing the intent of someone else. You could say I should post a response to his template I created, and before the template was deleted I did -- and I still have no response from him.
Taking the Goddess variant first, and it seems the commonest to the point where thealogy is typically assumed to be purely Goddess based, a linguistic derivation from the Greek "thea"
:Considering Minghong's process in this matter for a template he did not create, how much more rushed would he be if I either placed a comment in his talk box or changed the template myself (in fact, he still hasn't responded to any of my recent coments)?! Additionally he didn't give me 'due notice' as mentioned in [[WP:TfD]] for listing a TFD. I'm saddened by his display of unprofessionalism in this matter and clearly respond to say that the template I made was in no way meant to undermine his but to help improve his own. Thanks for your consideration. [[User:Quadra23|Quadra23]] 10:27, 2005 August 26 (GMT)
(goddess). Goddess systematics inevitably face the question of "god in a skirt" or not, a subtly [[sexism|sexist]] tag that nonetheless carries a genuine issue. This can be viewed as sexist because "in a skirt" defines a subject norm as altered, trivialised, and definitely derivative, much as some have considered the female to have been historically defined in relation to the male. Thealogy specifically aims to counter what its proponents perceive as the massive [[dualism|dualistic]] sexism in the field of religion, by asserting a female [[worldview]] that is not merely reformist or derivative, so its proponents would see this quip as especially destructive.
=== Broad interpretation of thealogy (Caron) ===
:*The nomination for deletion occurred on August 9th and the tag was placed on the template itself. You gave a summary of "proposed tfd holds no basis, pending discussion" on the same day indicating that you were aware of the TfD nomination. What makes you think you were not given "due notice" of the nomination for deletion? - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 16:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Caron's definition "Reflection on the divine in feminine and feminist terms" holds a caution for feminist theologians and thealogians alike that the female sacred extends beyond the feminist agenda. Often theology or feminist thealogy writes as if the Goddess is a feminist discovery. The "womenspirit" Goddess is a highly selected deity who for thealogians such as Christ has nothing to do with goddess practices such as violent sacrifice, or validating a male conqueror. However, this can be seen to be as inauthentic as the habit of some Christians of disowning the [[Inquisition]] as "not done by real Christians" (see the "[[no true Scotsman]]" [[logical fallacy]]).
::I am stating in terms of where this 'discussion' had occured was not given notice to me and essentially he had given me no room for a discussion with him (his deletion request was on the same day he accused but he allowed no discussion, isn't that against Wikipedia policy?), have you also considered his argument of 'similiar' templates when there are already two software templates? [[User:Quadra23|Quadra23]] 10:55, August 26 (GMT)
Nor is it a matter only of past history: many members of a huge international organisation like the [[Fellowship of Isis]] would not identify as feminist, nor would a great many [[Pagan]]s. Outside the goddessing of western [[New religious movement|NRMs]] thealogy can recognise and give due respect to the world millions in village and tribal religions who look to goddesses in ways that may or may
:::The correct place to discuss the nomination was on TfD. Just as an article deletion is discussed on VfD. Policy doesn't require the nominator to talk to you at all. You're not making your case to the nominator but to the other voters just as you should here. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 18:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
not be feminist, and Caron's definition allows thealogy to be this widely inclusive.
This broader view accords well with the kind of fluid systematics profiled by [[Cynthia Eller]] when she reports her respondent [[Margaret Keane]] as saying:
*'''Keep deleted''', 2 delete and 1 keep seems reasonable to close as delete. [[User:Christopherparham|Christopher Parham]] [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 15:20, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
:''I don't make those kind of distinctions that you hear about, they don't make any sense to me. You can say it's the Great Goddess, and that's the one Goddess, but she's also all of the many goddesses, and that's true. And she's everywhere. She's immanent in everything, in the sparkle of the sun on the sea, and even in an animistic concept. I think certain objects can embody that force and power. So I worship the Great Goddess, and I'm polytheistic and pantheistic and monotheistic too. And I also have a feeling for nature spirits...''
*'''Undelete'''. Seems worthy of existing and quite useful.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 17:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
::(1993 :132-133)
This broader view has most recently been labelled by [[Michael York]] as "polymorphic thealogy." He also raises the issue of whether thealogy venerates one Goddess or many, which some thealogicians consider a non-question since it arises from a monotheist worldview that they do not hold.
====[[University of Washington Police Department]]====
*VfD was no consensus. See [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/University of Washington Police Department]]. WP:NOT a democracy. By the way [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] is a great guy and I got nothing against him. [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] 00:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' and optionally tag for a merge. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', and I originally voted to delete the article. The reasoning given sounds like too much personal reasoning over whether the article should stay or go — that's for the VfD discussion rather than the closing admin. The reasoning implies discounting the merge vote, but even that would give 5d-3k which is a little low given that the possibly-discounted vote gave the option to interpret it as a keep. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 01:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
**I'm happy for my vote to be interpreted as a '''retain the redirect that is now there'''. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 23:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''' the police dept is already mentioned in the [[University of Washington]] article in sufficient detail. --[[User:TimPope|TimPope]] 06:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*As per TimPope; I've put a redirect here to the University of Washington. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 06:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
* This was a difficult judgment call. I considered running it back through VfD again but I've seen very few of those turn out to be useful. In the end, I decided that it was better to make a call and risk having it reversed than to leave this article in limbo. I made the call the way I did mostly so that the decision would be consistent with other VfD decisions about local police departments (which, from what I could see, have been universally "delete" decisions). Even I felt that was not a great argument since we all know that "Wikipedia is inconsistent". By the way, my personal opinion on the article was "weak delete as redundant" which would have taken the strict votecount to 6-4. Strict votecounting, however, is bad. Whoever makes this decision should always weigh the comments much more heavily than mere "votes". '''Abstain'''. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 13:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted'''. Seems to be a legit judgement call. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 23:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
However Caron's definition falls short of explicitly allowing for male positions in thealogy.
*'''Keep deleted'''. A legit call, and it would be a bad precedent to set to start second-guessing reasonable decisions. [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>☯</font>]] 00:00, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I was thinking case-by-case. Plus what if some of UWPD was merged to UW? Then we'd be breaking the GFDL. My argument is that he made Wikipedia a democracy, rather than if the article should exist. [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] 02:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. VfD result looks like a valid judgement call. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 23:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
=== A challenge to androcentrism ===
===August 22===
The third interpretation of thealogy as an assertion of female sacred worldviews is clearly political. The notes above touch on how this usage aims to counter the deeply established dualistic relegation of female as derivative, making the male the norm: as [[Mary Daly]] put it "If God is male, then the male is God."
Thealogy has been criticised as [[essentialism|essentialist]] by [[queer theory|queer theorists]] and others.
====[[List of Japanese given names]]====
To a thealogian it is important to explore the female worldview (not only but notably of the sacred) and not be compelled to take off female spectacles when looking at themes beyond female [[psychobiology]]. A speaker may choose to adopt a kind of gender neutral stance insofar as she can, or she may try to empathise with a male worldview, and a male speaker vice versa.
Hello. [[List of Japanese given names]] was recently deleted by {{user-c|Lucky 6.9}} after being transwikied without consensus. The page was placed in the transwiki queue with a minority of the VFD votes to be for transwikification. See [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Japanese given names]]. The transwiki template was quickly removed from the page and comments were made on the talk page (now not viewable) that the transwiki decision was made without consensus. However, it was not known where the transwikification queue was, and the page was eventually transwikied and deleted. When [[User talk:Lucky 6.9#deletion of List of Japanese given names|asked]] about the deletion of the page, Lucky 6.9 confused it with another page, indicating that this deletion was not considered in light of the above. Please consider restoring this page, it was not deleted with the proper procedure. Thanks. --[[User:ChrisRuvolo|ChrisRuvolo]] ([[User talk:ChrisRuvolo|t]]) 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
== Linguistic twiddling ==
*'''Undelete''' as per above. --[[User:ChrisRuvolo|ChrisRuvolo]] ([[User talk:ChrisRuvolo|t]]) 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid vfd. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
**Hi, please explain how the VFD result was valid without a consensus. Thanks. --[[User:ChrisRuvolo|ChrisRuvolo]] ([[User talk:ChrisRuvolo|t]]) 18:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
***Because it was determined to be a transwiki by the closing administrator. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
****If that is the policy, the policy sucks. A closing admin can ignore the majority of the votes? Very undemocratic. What is the point of voting if it is ultimately up to the whim of the admin? --[[User:ChrisRuvolo|ChrisRuvolo]] ([[User talk:ChrisRuvolo|t]]) 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*****That is a very good question. The problem is that the deletion system is inherently broken and biased depending on who closes what, but we have been unable to come up with anything better. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 07:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
***** Please go read the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|Deletion policy]] again. Despite the unfortunate name, "Votes for deletion" is not about "voting" at all. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. Closing admins are not merely allowed but are actually ''required'' to evaluate and weigh the evidence, comments and policy when making their decision. An admin who is merely "vote-counting" is failing to do his/her job. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]
*'''Keep deleted'''. Just look at the edit history: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/List_of_Japanese_given_names]. This has been created and deleted 114 times as vandalism. The total content of the last incarnation: "Brad." Of course, if someone was ready, willing and able to create a real article under this title, by all means unprotect it. For now, it's saving us wasted time leaving it locked out IMO. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
**Unless it's showing you something completely different from what it's showing me, it's only been recreated and redeleted twice. (And have non-administrators always been able to see deleted history via Special:Undelete/whatever links? Keen.) —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 16:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
***This is news to me. Is this a new feature to Wikimedia? Lucky 6.9, sorry, it seems you were not involved in the transwiki at all. I should have directed my comments to {{user-c|Dmcdevit}}. BTW, there are 100+ valid edits to an article there before some idiot came in and put "brad". Thanks. --[[User:ChrisRuvolo|ChrisRuvolo]] ([[User talk:ChrisRuvolo|t]]) 18:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
****No, there weren't 100+ valid edits to the article when someone came in and put "brad". The article had already been deleted. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 18:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*****Oh, I see, you are correct, that happened on Aug 18th, after the Aug 17th transwiki deletion. I had expected the two lists to be chronological when considered together. --[[User:ChrisRuvolo|ChrisRuvolo]] ([[User talk:ChrisRuvolo|t]]) 18:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
***(edit conflict) I see 114 ''deleted edits'' and 3 ''deletions''. Version before last deletion is nothing more than "<nowiki>{{nonsense}}brad</nowiki>" (or something like that, we cannot see the source code of deleted pages). The last two deletions are of vandalism; the first deletion is of the real content, points to the VfD as the reason, and the one who did it is ''not'' [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]], but [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 18:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 18:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*Undeleted. Is this still a transwiki candidate? - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 18:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
**This was grossly out of process. Kindly read the [[Wikipedia:undeletion policy|undeletion policy]] before taking such measures. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
**The article is now a candidate for speedy deletion because of the unusual undeletion. I suggest that people continue to vote as normal and we can resolve the final state of the article after voting is completed. --[[User:ChrisRuvolo|ChrisRuvolo]] ([[User talk:ChrisRuvolo|t]]) 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*All right, already. It's gone again. I refuse to get bent out of shape over this. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 22:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
* Took me a while to work out how to go on this one. On one hand it was legitimately closed and transwikied, and [[WP:CSD]] now embraces speedying of this class of article. On the other hand the closer's discussion mentions that there was a clear keep vote. He decided to transwiki apparently because some (most?) of the keep voters mentioned this as a possibility. my instincts are that this article is perfectly encyclopedic, because I'd find it personally useful I'm going to sway in the direction of ''undelete'' and '''vfd'''. If it's really that useful it should have no problem getting enough keep votes this time. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' per nominator. Based on the closer's comments (and count of the vote) it appears that transwiki was the outcome of [[WP:BOLD]] by the administrator, not the result of the voting. [[User:Christopherparham|Christopher Parham]] [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 07:29, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
*'''KD and replace with soft redirect''', it's been clearly established ([[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/names_and_surnames|here]] and [[WP:WINAD]]) that articles on names should go in Wiktionary rather than here. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">>|<</font>]] 07:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep transwikied'''. I think Rossami's judgment was sound. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 13:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
*Hm. I'm truly sorry that it looks like this whole thing was my fault, and I only caught wind of it now, when I just left town (in a hotel computer now). Well, I agree with Rossami's assessment of a transwiki. As in, many people believe it should be at Wiktionary. A transwiki (outside of VFD) is like a merge, it can be done at the editor's discretion and with little caution. And before the new CSD (which is when it was VFD'd and and closed), there would have been no problem with closing as a "keep, no consensus, and might as well transwiki while we're at it" without any fear of ambiguity. However, that put it in the tranwiki queue, where I found it (after the new CSD). I transwikied it and, as is normal procedure, speedy deleted the article. I think I didn't read the VFD or Rossami's explanation (can't remember, but it was my fault), because it's fairly obvious that there's not really a strong delete consensus. I think that in the interest of consensus, it should be '''undeleted''' and '''relisted on VFD''' to try to find a consensus. I agree with the delete per WINAD sentiment, but I do think this was not what consensus revealed the first time. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 03:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
* As the closer in question, I am going to '''abstain''' from voting here but I should explain that at the time this decision was made, a "transwiki" decision was a form of "keep" - just not a "keep in Wikipedia". Articles were to be transwiki'd (an action which can be done or undone by any editor without loss of attribution history) and then routinely deleted from the source Wikimedia project. We did not then have a requirement to explicitly close a decision as "transwiki ''and'' delete" from the source. Closing as "no consensus but we're still going to get it out of Wikipedia" was acceptable as long as the content and attribution history were preserved in one of the Wikimedia projects. The interpretation of transwiki has since become more confused but [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]] acted in accordance with the established practice of the time. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 21:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep transwikied'''. Korath worded my feelings perfectly on the VFD. ''Transwiki. Wiktionary has an appendix for given names. —Korath (Talk) 20:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)''. Our [[Japanese names]] article can link to the Wiktionary appendix. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep transwikied'''. As the compiler/maintainer of the largest free online collection of Japanese names on the planet (see [http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/enamdict_doc.html ENAMDICT/JMNedict] and [http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?3C WWWJDIC]), I don't think there is much place in Wikipedia for a article with a selection of names. Better to have the [[Japanese name]] entry and link/point to a real collection. --[[User:Jimbreen|JimBreen]] 23:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Many scholars find the term "thealogy" exasperating, a linguistic twiddling, including some feminist theologians. But the position of women operating within the male worldview of theology, as in most of [[feminist theology]], is more marginal than in the general run of professional occupations these days. The rigidly entrenched sexism in the contemporary academy perceived by some thealogs recalls situations of general Women's Liberation in 1972, rather than society 30 years later (see recent research studies Ofsted UK).
===August 20===
====[[John Eastman]]====
The person who marked this article stub for deletion plainly has not read any Beatles biographies or histories. John Eastman was Paul McCartney's brother-in-law (Linda was his sister) and served as his co-manager with Lee Eastman (and nuisance to anyone else involved with them). John played a minor, but crucial, role in the Beatles breakup, and also in the loss of their publishing company (Northern Songs) to ATV, who later sold it (and their song copyrights) to Michael Jackson. The other Beatles pretty much hated him, John Lennon in particular, who really didn't care for either Eastman (Lee or John)'s form of schmoozing or patronisation. This hardly sounds like "not a well-known person", and if the article is deleted, this and other information cannot be added. [[User:70.189.195.127|Radsay]] 16:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
==See also==
* '''Comment''' I believe the individual may be notable, but I also believe the VFD was valid, (even though it only had 2 votes). It is on the article itself to, in some way, establish the significance of its topic. The article did not mention any tangible role that Eastman played in Beatles' history. It is acceptable to recreate an article if and only if it is substantially different than the state it was in at the time it was VFDed. A more expansive article that establishes encyclopedic merit can and perhaps should be created by someone knowledgeable about the person. [[User:Func|Func]]( [[User_talk:Func|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Func|c]], [[Special:Emailuser/Func|@]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=Func ]) 16:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
*[[God and gender]]
*[[feminist theology]]
*[[goddess]]
*[[goddess worship]]
==References==
* '''Reply''' I am knowledgeable about the person, but wanted to recheck my facts before creating a "more expansive article"; the entry was deleted before I (or anyone else) had the chance to do so. I read the comments by those voters, and found them laughable in context—and have seen shorter entries on other topics that remain. John Eastman is linked to in other Beatles-related articles; I figured there ought to be something to fill that gap, while it awaited a full entry. [[User:70.189.195.127|Radsay]] 16:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
* Isaac Bonewits "The Second Epistle of Isaac" in "the Druid Chronicles (Evolved)" Berkeley Drunemeton Press, 1974.
*Isaac Bonewits "Real Magic" Creative Arts Book Co., 1979
*Charlotte Caron "To Make and Make Again: Feminist Ritual Thealogy" NY Crossroad 1993
*Carol Christ "Rebirth of the Goddess:Finding meaning in feminist spirituality" Routledge 1997
*Cynthia Eller "Living in the Lap of the Goddess: The Feminist Spirituality Movement in America" Crossroad 1993
*Naomi Goldenberg "The Changing of the Gods" 1979
*Ursula King "Women and Spirituality" Macmillan 1989
*Melissa Raphael "Thealogy & Embodiment" 1997 Sheffield Academic Press
*Melissa Raphael "Introducing Thealogy: Discourse on the Goddess" 1999 Sheffield Academic Press
*Letty M. Russell & J Shannon Clarkson "Dictionary of Feminist Theologies" Mowbray 1996.
*Starr* Saffa "Tahirih Thealogy: Female Christ Spirit of the Age" OzForUs Publishing 2004; Zeus-publications 2005.
*Valerie Saiving "Androcentrism in Religious Studies" in Journal of Religion 56:1976:177-97
[[Category:Theology]]
*'''Undelete''', perhaps a history-only undelete. Since we have a volunteer to write a long(er) article about this person, there's no reason not to allow them access to the deleted versions of this article. <font color="green">[[User:Android79|android]]</font><font color="purple">[[User talk:Android79|79]]</font> 17:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
*I would oppose a history-only undelete if the volunteer is going to use the content of the stub to start an article from, since that would be a violation of [[GFDL]]. If Radsay wants to create a new article, it would be better to do so from scratch. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 06:14, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
:*Just so you know in future, Zoe, a history-only undelete can be precisely for the purpose of preserving and guaranteeing GFDL compliance. The history-only undelete restores the earlier versions of an article to its history, so that we can give credit to the authors of the original deleted article. (If there is any question about whether or not material from the old, deleted article was used in our new article, then a history-only undelete is the prudent course.) Of course, if it is the original author who also creates the new article then the question is moot; he receives credit anyway. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 13:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Reply''' I wrote the initial stub that was deleted, to follow the general format of other biographical entries; any new article would contain identical information in its opening sentence, and follow that format. As it is, I no longer know what I wrote since its deletion. Please explain this "violation", and also how a new article could avoid it and still follow format, while retaining the essential information. [[User:70.189.195.127|Radsay]] 06:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
**Ah, okay, if you're the original creator, then I have no problem with undeletion so long as you do expand. Please realize that minimal stubs which do not claim any notability are candidates for speedy deletion, and this deletion was properly done. '''Undelete''', so long as it is expanded in a reasonable timeframe. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 06:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
* '''Undelete''', new evidence of notability provided. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 17:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. Original speedy was okay, just being related to famous people isn't a claim of notability. Should probably be merged with redirect to Lee Eastman, which already contains an account of the breakup and the role of Eastman, ''père et fils'', in it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 00:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete,''' because Linda Eastman attended the same high school I did. She was a senior when I was a freshman, but I actually do have the yearbook from the year she graduated. Had I but known she was going to marry Paul McCartney, I would have tried harder to meet her and get her to sign the yearbook. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' as above. [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
| 