Wikipedia:Deletion review

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.

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. 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 import feature is completed.

List of gags in the Naked Gun series

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gags in the Naked Gun series

I'm not asking for an undeletion as such, but for the content to be copied over to the three movie articles, under a trivia section perhaps. Many movie articles on wikipedia have trivia sections which cover this sort of thing. Astrokey44 11:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've moved this request to the content review section, where I think it belongs. --- Charles Stewart 15:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't like this kind of request very much, and yes, I know what the blurb just up there says. The fact is that this material has been rejected by AfD, and this feels like working it back in through th back door. -Splash^talk 15:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The material was rejected by AfD, but it was not rejected by the editors/readers of the individual movie articles (who might be able to present compelling justification for its inclusion in a different form). Editors/readers of the list were invited to participate in the AfD discussion (via the notice that appeared on the page), but editors/readers of the individual movie articles were not. Therefore, the decision to exclude this content should be applied to the former, but not to the latter. —Lifeisunfair 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Splash. Re-posting deleted material under a different heading is bad. If there was a consensus to do so people would have voted to merge/redirect. Do not undelete and paste. -R. fiend 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• If this material was introduced under a trvia section in the movie articles, noone would think about deleting it. Its just because it has a separate article. At least copy the relevant sections to the talk pages of the movie articles so it can go through the normal process of reverts/additions etc. to determine what should be included Astrokey44 22:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see any harm in userfying the contents over to Astrokey44's user page temporarily, so he can pick portions of it to use in other articles, as found suitable. There was no copyright violation or offensive material in the deleted article. As admins, Splash, R. fiend and I have access to that text. I don't see any justification for denying Astrokey44 the opportunity to view a copy of it for his reference. The decision which parts are suitable as trivia for the movie articles is a separate issue, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if he/she does choose to use any parts of it in another article, you have just made it much more complicated to meet our obligations under GFDL to preserve attribution history. What's done is done but in the future I would prefer that we wait until the discussion is complete before making such moves. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The attribution requirement can be met quite simply: one just links to the userfied page in the edit summary, citing it is a source. No need for fancy admin interventions, even if they result in a nicer reading edit history. --- Charles Stewart 23:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't done anything yet. What I am proposing is that I undelete the page, move it to User:Astrokey44/List of gags in the Naked Gun series, and re-delete the resulting redirect in List of gags in the Naked Gun series. The resulting userfied page would have the full history per GFDL, but List of gags in the Naked Gun series would stay deleted as per the AfD. Eventually the userfied page would also be deleted, but any admin would be able to trace the full history. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That would not likely be a viably transparent route to the history per the GFDL, which does not elevate Wiki admins above everyone else... You'd have to leave the userfied article undeleted. -Splash^talk 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I see no harm in simply undeleting the history of List of gags in the Naked Gun series, and leaving the page protected as a redirect to The Naked Gun. Let's not get bogged down in bureaucracy. —Lifeisunfair 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Wouldn't it be easier to just post each of the 3 sections on the talk pages of movies 1, 2 and 3? or even easier post them all on the talk page of the first one Astrokey44 03:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • To answer Charles above, no, moving the text to a userpage and then linking to the userfied page would not be sufficient. Contribution history must be traceable back to the original contributor, not merely to Astrokey44. The full version would have to remain (as OwenX proposed) but as Splash points out, could not ever be deleted. That would defeat the intent of the AFD decision. To answer Astrokey44, yes, we could post the sections but you'd also have to cut-and-paste the contribution history. Again, that would seem to defeat the intent of the AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
            • While I understand the principle issues raised here, it seems we are making much too big a deal out of this. We've all seen larger works than this 20-line list get a cut-and-paste treatment into BJAODN, without any retention of history visible to non-admins. It wouldn't bother me, and it shouldn't offend any of the voters on the AfD if this article does end up living as a user subpage, if that's what full-transparency GFDL calls for. Fulfilling Astrokey44's request shouldn't be such a big deal. Owen× ☎ 04:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Wait a minute, I didnt want it to 'live' as my subpage. Its supposed to go into the articles, not be a user subpage Astrokey44|talk 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Okay, then to address your If this material was introduced under a trvia section in the movie articles, noone would think about deleting it, I say, yes, I, for one, would delete it in a heartbeat. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • True Astrokey, you didn't ask for userfying, but the edit history of the article needs to be retained per the GFDL. Userfication was given as a suggestion for a place to point to in order comply with the GFDL and give the originators their credit. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is an excellent idea. The article should not have been deleted in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

History only undeletion

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.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 October 12}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 12}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 12|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

December 9, 2005

Treigloffobia

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Treigloffobia. Per User:Splash's closing comments, "I've little choice since the sources cited certainly don't include the word with either spelling (and English sources are better on the English Wikipedia). I hope this is not systemic bias, but, if it is, then either Deletion Review will fix it, or a comprehensive rewrite with good, reliable sources will do.", he seemed to suggest that this should be undeleted, and I agree with him. Whilst I voted delete (actually BJAODN), latter additions to the AFD vote suggested that the page may have had content of worth later on (I didn't look at the article later so don't know). I was just checking through the AFD's and this one stuck out like a sore thumb. Also note that there were only 3 votes: 1 keep and 2 deletes. Surely not enough for a consensus. I'd like it to be relisted to form consensus. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment two things:

1. If I had been an admin and closed this vote, I'd have counted the two anonymous contributors (if they were indeed different) as a single keep vote, since their comments were substantive and evidence-based, which would have resulkted in no consensus. Splash did a pretty good job closing this, though, given that the AfD didn't get to grips with the issues in a satisfactory way.
2. I'd like to see this article, and I've posted an active cy.wikipedia editor [1]: can we temporarily undelete this article, please? --- Charles Stewart 15:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (copyedit Charles Stewart 15:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Danish Pedophile Association

Got speedied and protected while the user was still creating it (so there wasn't even anything there except the first link). Ouch!

It's a pretty distasteful subject, for sure, that's probably why it got deleted, but it's even in the new jersey news, so it's certainly notable, as far as I can tell. Kim Bruning 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unprotect, notable, at least let the guy finish typing before you delete, sheesh. Talk about on the ball! ;-) Kim Bruning 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. The content was not the same as the original speedy, so I don't see that a good reason was given for deletion. I tried to undelete it but apparently I screwed something up, it didn't work the way I wanted it to. Friday (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  I believe I got it back the way I wanted it now, after several tries. Apologies for getting in a delete/undelete war with myself- I'll leave a note on my talk page warning me not to do it again. Friday (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• You have got to be kidding. This isn't much more than link spamming. Doesn't that user have anything better to do? - Lucky 6.9 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Lucky, don't wheel-war eh? Let the guy actually add some content. Go and secure a promise from him first if you don't trust me. :-) Kim Bruning 01:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Kim, I trust you implicitly. All right, let's let it ride. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 01:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks dude. I've also nudged Gbleem to actually go forth and edit, so let's see if he keeps his promise. :-) Kim Bruning 01:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks guys. Friday (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is the usual "file under don't speedy within the first ten minutes of an article's existence if it's not obvious vandalism," followed by "deletion regards content, not topic." Phil Sandifer 01:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh...no. It wasn't. The original speedies were pure, Grade-A link spam. And I wasn't the first to delete it, either. I've defended some really distasteful articles. This one, frankly, stinks. On ice. However, let's see what becomes of this. - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Moshzilla

Moshzilla is an internet phenonenom, I think that it belongs in wikipedia. please undelete it.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moshzilla. I counted 6 votes to merge or keep and 9 to delete. One of the merge votes (Rtconner's) actually bolded "delete", but merge and delete are not compatible, so it either it should count as a merge as per his his reasoning (see vote below).

Delete Merge into Internet phenomenon, does not deserve a full article, has had a small impact on a relatively small amount of people. [[User:Rtconner]Rtconner]]

• Undelete and relist, I can see people willing to merge and to delete, but neither has a concensus. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). It would have been nice if the closing admin had articulated his/her reasoning a bit more clearly. We are left now to reverse-engineer the decision. I count 9 unambiguous "delete" opinions, 3 "straight keeps", 2 "merge and redirect" and 2 "merge and delete". Rtconner (one of the two "merge and deletes") is a very new user who was actually editing as an anon. While the closing admin has the right to discount that vote, he/she is not obligated to do so. The other "merge and delete" was the nominator. Based on the comments made in each case, I think it was within allowable discretion to count those as "deletes" rather than as "keep as merge". I can see a reasonable interpretation of this decision as 11 "delete" to 5 "keep". Furthermore, I see an unambiguous 13 to 3 decision against keeping it as an independent article. If that was the logic actually used by the closing admin, I think it was within the allowable range of interpretation. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Right to exist

A very important concept that is central to Israeli/Palestinian negotiations. The article that I wrote was speedy deleted, with no review, because a different article with that same title had apparently been deleted before. I was under the impression that AFD votes were for a specific article, not a blanket prohibition on anything ever being created under that title again. Obviously, there are potential issues with an article like this being subject to an edit war or insertion of personal opinion, but that's what vandalism patrol is for. At the very least, the new article should get its day in AFD before being summarily deleted. Crotalus horridus 20:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like Jayjg deleted it under CSD G4, which only applies if the material is A substantially identical copy. If it is not, undelete --- Charles Stewart 20:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is slightly difficult, and I'm not going to reach a conclusion straight off. From reading the old and the new articles, they are substantially identical (which is what WP:CSD#G4 requires) insofar as the new article was a strict subset of the old, longer article on the same material. AfD has rejected the same material before. Note that even though the old article included arguments both "for" and "against" as the new did (and its ext link [2] does), it was soundly rejected on POV OR grounds. The speedy was valid, imo. There was no sourcing in the original article, but there are only 2 sources in the new one (a Guardian article and mag article, which seems a little below the necessary level for this kind of topic). However, that debate was a long time ago, and we should sometimes revisit things. That seems rather to fail in this case, however, since one presumes that nothing about the situation has substantially changed since mid-May. I'm not sure what to do, or what to recommend. -Splash^talk 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist, or make the content temporarily to establish that it is effectively the same as the old version. But generally, if content is deleted for being POV/OR, the addition of sources is a change that would almost always be described as substantial. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Simply adding an external link or two doesn't automatically mean your article earns undeletion when AfD has soundly removed it (when the material was far more comprehensive) in the past. -Splash^talk 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, that depends entirely on the article and the nature of the links, doesn't it. And having no idea what those are, better safe than sorry. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Another interesting case for review. The deleted version of this article (3 May 2005) was 968 words. The AFD decision was an overwhelming "delete" decision. The speedy-deleted version (30 Nov 2005) was a mere 212 words. A side-by-side review of the texts gives every indication of having been independently written. Several external links were included which were not part of the 3 May version. As Charles Stewart says above, the speedy-deletion criterion only applies if the content was a "substantially identical copy". Even with such an overwhelming prior decision, I think this was sufficiently different that the speedy criterion should not have been applied. The primary arguments for deletion made during the original discussion were that there was an inherent bias in the topic and that the article constituted original research. The links provided in the 30 Nov version do use the phrase "right to exist" but my own cursory review does not suggest that it is the widely-known "political shorthand" alleged in the article. Overturn the speedy-deletion and immediately list for regular AFD. The AFD should explicitly reference the prior discussion since many of the problems cited with the earlier version still appear to apply to the latest version. In particular, it has not yet been established to my satisfaction that this version is not also original research. Rossami (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

List of non-fictional heroes

(Yes, it's yet another list. Let the eye-rolling commence. :)

Full disclosure: I voted "keep" on this, and created the page as a split from a larger list of heroes.
The AfD votes for this page don't seem to warrant a "rough consensus". The vote was 7/5 in favor of delete, 6/5 if the anonymous IP with an unusually high number of AfD votes is discounted. I think this should have been a "no-consensus" as with similar AfDs. Turnstep 14:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, on raw count I see 7d-5k, discounting the anon. However, the title of the list is inherently POV and that's pretty obvious. Why is Bill Clinton a hero? Why isn't my dad? It could probably be renamed as List of people referred to as heros, as was suggested in the debate. Now, Enochlau should have given a detailed reason for their decision here. However, I'm inclined to think that the poor arguments given for keeping it ("coz I like it", "you didn't nominate every other list for deletion") really don't match up to the POV (and unmentioned but important WP:V) problems. At least one keeper reasons themselves properly, but hobbles their argument by insisting we all know what a hero is: an entirely objectionable basis on which to construct a list such as this, and a point-of-view that was comprehensively challenged. Putting "List" at the front of your page title does not give you carte-blanche to flout core policies or demand that you be given leniency compared to non-lists, just because we have so many other lists. A poorly executed close, but a valid one nonetheless. Keep deleted. -Splash^talk 14:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Including the anonymous delete vote we actually have eight deletes (perhaps you overlooked Colin Kimbrell). I probably would have closed this thing as a "no consensus" if I had done so, and calling it a "delete" should definitely have had a bit of explanation behind it. I am quite sure that I would not have voted to keep it however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). While the raw count numbers indicate no consensus, I agree with Splash that the arguments that the list is inherently POV is the determining factor. As mentioned in the AfD, there is no objective means to decide if real world figures such as Yasser Arafat, Josef Stalin, or Benedict Arnold were heroes or villains. --Allen3 ^talk 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This is why AfD is a discussion and not a vote-count. A thousand good-faith keep votes from good editors would not prevent this article from being inherently POV listcruft. android79 15:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In a way, but if we have 10 good faith "delete" votes vs. 50 good faith but misguided "keep" votes it would be difficult to call that a "consensus to delete", which is the real requirement. Discretion is usable in close cases, but it doesn't grant absolute freedom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A dozen editors voting "keep it because I like it" is not an attempt at forming consensus and completely ignores WP:NPOV. android79 15:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) per talk. I'm willing to be kind to things like articles on borderline-notable things, but in the case of an article with obvious neutrality and verifiability problems I just can't bring myself to overrule a close on the basis of technicalities. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse/keep deleted, per most of the above. It takes human judgement to close an Afd, since it's not a simple vote. A thousand people screaming "keep" cannot overrule core editorial policies like WP:V and WP:NOR. Friday (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted unsalvagably POV. Without going into a big cultural rant, the word "hero" is one of the most overused and misunderstood in the English language. Everybody who manages even a modicum of success at any endeavour, career, occupation, sport, etc is more than likely to be called a hero at some point. Hercules spins in his mythological grave every time a sentence appears in the newspaper like "District comptroller Anderson, who approved the funding to have the parking lot repaved outside Sewage Processing Facility #14, is truly a hero of the community". Hero in the modern sense means virtually anybody who does or tries to do something that might be seen as good by pretty much anyone else. If defined broadly enough, just about everyone is a hero. Such a nebulous concept is not a reasonable subject for a list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The key to a successful list is a clear criterion for inclusion that can effectively be policed in keeping with WP:V. As per Starblind, that is not the case here. Closing admins should take care with their summing up in cases like that are likely to be challenged: Turnstep did nothing wrong by raising this here. --- Charles Stewart 16:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I generally don't support overruling the apparent votes because something is "inherently POV", but the point here is that the keep arguments were clearly not well reasoned. Nobody argued that it wasn't POV, they argued it should be kept anyway. Thus I make the "vote" count 6-0. -- SCZenz 16:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• An observation in addition to my comment above: the only entry in the external links in the first version of the article says "The interpretation is entirely personal. It always is.". How right they are. -Splash^talk 17:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for the reason already expressed. I cannot agree with the absolute veto power Android appears to give to one admin's interpretation of NPOV, but policy concerns do add some extra support to the delete cause in this instance. Xoloz 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

On a related issue, why are we doing salt-the-earth "do not recreate this page" notes for a page with only one recreation? Phil Sandifer 16:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably because it's a new admin. I just made a comment vaguely to that effect on his talk page. —Cryptic (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science

This article is related to the discussion immediately below. Michael added it to the discussion header of that discussion but I'm breaking it out as a separate discussion because I think the fact-base for this article is significantly different from the facts (and the possible conclusion) of the list below.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 Nov 05. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science. During the discussion, the copyright holder came forward and requested deletion. One user did offer an opinion that the list is inherently uncopyrightable. That point was disputed in the AFD discussion. The discussion was closed as a no-consensus decision on 28 Nov 05.

Unfortunately, I believe that the copyright of the original list was enforceable because the list was not a mere collection of publicly available information. The list of Recipients of the National Medal of Science was filtered for ethnicity by the copyright holder, cross-referenced with other information, etc. (See the AFD discussion for the rest of his claims.)

We have always held that correction of copyright violations supersede AFD's discretionary decisions. I deleted the article in accordance with my understanding of Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Jinfo list that it supposedly is copied from? All it has is names and date of award, with some footnotes about Jewishness. Name and date of award is purely factual information, not copyrightable under Feist v. Rural (it's facts, not public availability, that matters here, and ethnicity too is factual). The list here was arranged differently, alphabetical rather than chronological, and has been ever since the first version of the list, so it's not a copy of Jinfo's arrangement of the names. The text of the list also adds considerable useful information that apparently is not copied.

For good reason, articles for deletion is not the place to deal with copyright problems. So it's not surprising that nobody was in position to make the right counterarguments. --Michael Snow 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Three questions:
  1. Are the other lists that User:Jinfo says are copyvios going to end up here? If so, we should probably treat them all at once.
  2. Is it clear that these lists are derived from the Jinfo pages? As a speculative exercise, I can imagine that User:84.228.75.134 saw the lists at jinfo.org, thought it would be a good idea if WP were to have similar lists, and painstakingly put together the lists without further consulting the jinfo.org lists.
  3. As a matter of interest, what is the policy for challenging copyvio deletions? Is contacting Wikipedia:Designated agent the only channel?--- Charles Stewart 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish scientists and philosophers

Longstanding article tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was a blatant copyright infringement created within the previous 48 hours (criterion A8, I believe that is). Then, the person who actually performed the deletion didn't even mention this bogus justification as the reason for deletion, just commented on it being a stupid list. It may be that, perhaps, but that's not grounds for speedy deletion. --Michael Snow 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I may have some of the history wrong since there appear to have been some name-changes to the article. But based on what I can see, the version which existed on 24 Nov 05 was credibly accused of being a copyvio. Evidence was presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science with a specific request for deletion of that article from the copyright holder. The only counter-claim made about the "Recipients of NMS" article was that the list was non-copyrightable merely because it was a list. That interpretation is, in my opinion, legally unsupportable not just in Australia (as was said in the AFD discussion) but in all major jurisdictions. Lists are copyrightable. The AFD discussion was closed on 28 Nov 05 as "no concensus". I consider that decision to have been in error but I think it was probably an honest mistake given the history of the article during the discussion. That discussion should have been closed early as a "confirmed copyvio" governed not by the WP:CSD or even the AFD process but by the WP:CV process (and more specifically, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation).

Having, I think, resolved the "Recipients of NMS" article, we can turn to the allegation by user:StabRule that this list is derivative of the copyvio list. Clearly, the article was mistagged. The speedy-copyvio notice did not apply. However, the regular copyvio notice may have applied. While the first version was sorted differently and wikified, there were many points of similarity with the copyvio text. There were also some points of difference. It is possible that the lists were developed independently but certainly there was cause to question the text. The fact that the deleting admin didn't specifically cite the copyvio in the reason for deletion but instead called it a "stupid list" might be cause for a comment on his/her Talk page about WP:CIVILITY but does not invalidate the deletion if he/she were convinced that this was a confirmed copyvio. Given the confusion, I could support a decision to undelete and immediately investigate as a regular copyright violation. However, I also note that the versions created since 25 Nov 05 are not recreations of the deleted content and are a safe start to re-building the article. At this point, it might be best to leave it alone. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a derivative of the National Medal of Science list, if you look at the history that one is quite recent and this one significantly predates it. The regular process for copyright problems would be fine; my contention is that we're dealing with factual information and Feist v. Rural applies. --Michael Snow 07:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please note: Michael's comments below were added during an edit conflict as I was correcting and extensively revising my inital findings. Apologies for the confusion. Rossami
  • Pardon me, are you saying this page was discussed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or merely that it is "governed" by the process there? If it was discussed there, could you please point it out to me? Otherwise, it needs to go through that process. This is not a confirmed copyright infringement, that claim is disputed. At least one administrator disagreed with the speedy tag and removed it before the deletion was performed by someone else. This is not a simple cut-and-paste scenario of identical lists, if there was any copying it may well involve only factual information (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). It looks to me like an out-of-process speedy deletion that didn't get the necessary deliberation. --Michael Snow 06:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I do mean that the "Recipients of NMS" article's decision was "governed by" the copyvio rules. I do not know of any discussion on Wikipedia:Copyright problems but a different set of steps are followed if we receive a request for deletion directly from the copyright holder. Listing for 10 days is not required (or even, I believe, allowed) in that case. The copyvio of the "Recipients" article was not disputed. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So now I'll have to add the second article to my request, since you've just speedy deleted it after the debate was closed as "no consensus". --Michael Snow 06:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Update: The person claiming to hold the copyright to the deleted version of this page did point us to the eleven sub-pages of http://www.jinfo.org/. I'd overlooked them before. They do appear to substantiate his claim that the Wikipedia list was a compilation of copies of his lists. Rossami (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

SHOCKINIS

Speedy deleted presumably. I don't see why wikipedia users shouldn't be able to look these up. Content was: SHOCKINIS are 3&1/4 inch customizable pre-assembled mini block action figures.Shockinis can be customized with stickers as well as paint and clay... Kappa 05:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete unless the rest of the content makes clear a reason for speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD Google appears to confirm the existence of these, and the grounds for speedy are not obvious. Send it to AfD for a full discussion. Xoloz 07:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undeleted - at a correct article title, Shockini. FCYTravis 07:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• There already was an afd, for a fuller article including everything in the current iteration, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shockini. Nothing appears wrong with that afd. The current version should be deleted in accordance with it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (or, more precisely, should have been kept deleted). Shockini and SHOCKINI are both substantial recreations of content already deleted in an AfD, per Cryptic. And why the assumption that the deletion was out-of-process, just because you couldn't immediately find evidence? -- SCZenz 11:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Very likely, the assumption was made because it was thought the deleting admin would be thorough enough to mention the AfD in the log. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Xoloz 18:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redeleted. This could have been avoided with a deletion summary pointing to the previous AFD. I think the undeletion was made with the best intentions however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  I concur completely, and I think I should make clear that my remark above wasn't intended to imply otherwise. That being said, Deletion Review should be allowed some time for discussion before an undeletion or other change is made, unless the situation is very clear-cut. -- SCZenz 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per AFD - Tεxτurε 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Not that it would have necessarily caused the closer in the original AfD to draw a different conclusion, but he miscounted the votes. There were three non-discounted keep votes, not just two: User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Kzollman and User:Cnwb. -- DS1953 19:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid AfD. Undeletion because you don't like the way the deleting admin worded his reasoning is solely WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. The admin who initially speedied SHOCKINIS didn't reference the afd discussion, and there's no reason to think the undeleting admin noticed it. I'm not in the habit of checking for past afds at titles I'm moving articles to, either. —Cryptic (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Zoe Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Texture and AFD. Nandesuka 08:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and Redirect to action figures. --Pat 13:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

December 8, 2005

Southern Ivies

This was last discussed on AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivies, with the result a no-consensus keep. However, it was earlier discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League with the result being recorded as a delete. After this delete it was undeleted or recreated (I'm not quite sure which) and moved to the name "Southern Ivies". Then on 2 December 2005 User:Enochlau deleted this with the note "See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League - slipped through net" and the redirect at Southern Ivy League was later speedied as a redir to a nonexistent page. The deletion was done in spite of comments on the talk page referencing the second AfD discussion. I have undeleted both the article and the redir. I am bringing this here for comment on this action, and to document that this has been undeleted in process, in hopes of avoiding any future misunderstandings about this article. I have no strong feelings about the article itself, and I'm not sure how I would vote if it were re-nominated on AfD. DES ^(talk) 18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Southern Ivies has been here before, and it was resubmitted for a second AfD, which did not reach consensus. Your action was perfectly in keeping with the second AfD, and (of course) the later AfD governs the article's fate. So, Endorse DES. Xoloz 18:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The article was moved during AfD by Snowspinner with the edit comment "(Southern Ivy League moved to Southern Ivies: Better mirrors Public Ivies)" which also makes sense since there has never been any Southern Ivy League. The present article is very different from the article at the time it was moved, and the votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League refer to it in that form, which probably explains the difference in the votes.

• • FWIW, I tend to keep a mental log of irregularities caused by the "pro-IAR" admins at DVR. Although I recall that Snowspinner did jump the gun a bit, his move was validated in process by subsequent discussions. I don't consider any process violation here substantial. Xoloz 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with DES that the AFDs have been irregularly handled. Please relist with a full explanation of the deletion history of this concept so viewers can decide with context. --DDG 19:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• The undeletion was entirely sensible, the deletion presumably a mistake, the report here a simple courtesy. It can be speedily unlisted as far as I'm concerned. There is no need to re-AfD it, and no case for a reverse-AfD on Deletion Review. -Splash^talk 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like a case of Enochlau mistaking the article for something CSD G4-able, but if he deleted Southern I vies, why is Special:Undelete/Southern Ivies blank? What page was deleted, when and what reason was given? --- Charles Stewart 20:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Special:Undelete is empty if there are no revisions to undelete (confusingly — it's not the same thing as the deletion log). You need to look here instead. -Splash^talk 20:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I see that the two special pages give different results, but I can't figure out why Special:Undelete is empty: you can't delete an empty page, so why don't the deleted edits show? --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Got it: only edits that are still deleted are shown on Special:Undelete. Bit slow today. --- Charles Stewart 21:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It is also unfortunate that there is no way for someone who undeletes to enter a reason in the log, or if there is a way i don't know how to do that. DES ^(talk) 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a case where I think that editing old AfD discussions is a good thing, to note the existence of new discussions. --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks to DES for doing just this. --- Charles Stewart 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• To be clear, I brought this here largely as a courtesy, adn to clearly document what I had done. I think that the deletion was a simple mistake, that User:Enochlau found the first AfD discussion and believed that the deletion had somehow never been carried out. It is unusual to have two separate Afd discussins on the same article within 2 weeks of each other, and still more unusual when the two discussins are about the same article but under different names, with different results. But that is what happened in this case. As to whether this is a worthy article or not, i take no stand, and this is not really the place to discuss it. i merely wanted to notify the community of my action in undeleting, and give people a chance to indicate if the thought this action was in any way improper, and to document these actions for the future. If anyone now (or in the future) thinks this article should be removed from wikipedia, it can be re-nominated for AfD in the usual way, although links to the past debates would be a good idea IMO if this is done. DES ^(talk) 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It probably was. I think (if my memory serves) I was roaming Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and this page was tagged as speedy for having slipped through net, with a link to the AfD page which said "delete", so it seemed like a pretty clear case to delete. I don't recall seeing a link to the other AfD discussion that said "keep", but since that has come to light, of course, the deletion must have been a mistake then. I apologise for any inconvenience. Enochlau 22:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, there's nothing here to argue about. I shouldn't have fussed about renominating it for AfD. I've trimmed my way-too-long comments above. Everyone acted reasonably. Maybe we can have a big group hug and just forget it? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• (hug) Enochlau 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

December 7, 2005

Joaquin Ma. Gutierrez

Was deleted on August 13, 2005 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joaquin Ma. Gutierrez), 3-1 in favour of deletion. I think it was deleted mainly due to being unsourced, and people consequently being unsure whether this was for real or just vanity. However, methinks this young chap would be worth a minor encyclopedia entry... See also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#filipino_violinst and Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/July_2005#Who_is_the_Violinist. Of course, if undeleted, the article should be moved to the full name, and "Chino Gutierrez", "Joaquin Gutierrez", and "Joaquin Maria Gutierrez" created as redirects. Lupo 09:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and AfD. Since the article was listed at AfD a number of articles have appeared promoting Gutierrez in the Philipine press. [3] [4] [5] While this may or may not be enough to meet the guidelines at WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, it is at least enough to give the article another chance. --Allen3 ^talk 17:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Undelete and relist per Allen3. No harm in a re-evaluation where there is clear evidence of changed circumstance. Xoloz 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and AfD per Allen3. We always say "if new information comes to light..." and it appears to have done so here. -Splash^talk 17:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD seems like enough new information (from a decent source too) to give it another run. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist, a significant change that would have affected the outcome of the AfD has occurred, so give it another try. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, and I don't see the sense in relisting. This article about a prodigy should obviously not have been deleted in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Remember, it only takes one good-faith nominator to initiate the deletion process. As such, I rarely see any sense in not relisting, almost as a courtesy, to provide a more definitive resolution to any possible disputes. Xoloz 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It might interest you to know that the original AfD nominator, User:Jake013, went on an AfD spree some months back, nominating such articles as Jascha Heifetz and other notable violinists. I would hardly consider that a good-faith nominator. However, relisting might, as you say, give a more definitive solution to this problem. Don Diego[[User talk:Don Diego|^(Talk)]] 20:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

December 6, 2005

Mixed

This was deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed. I wanted it to be made a disambiguation page which I have now done to show that it can link to quite a lot of articles. Astrokey44 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Except that you haven't done that. Not a single one of the articles linked to is ambiguous, none of them being known simply as "Mixed". Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What_NOT_to_put_on_disambiguation_pages: Dictionary definitions don't belong here, nor do lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms a part of the article title. Uncle G 01:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK sorry I didn't realise that. but even if this not right for a disambiguation page it should still get a {{wi}} template Astrokey44 04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is not a valid or useful disambiguation page. The current content has nothing to do with the previous AfD, so it seems like the correct thing to do would be to relist it for deletion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 02:26:17Z
• I don't understand why this is here. This content has no relation to the previous content at all. -Splash^talk 02:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I already said that it should be made a disambig page in the vfd which was overruled. (although after Uncle G's comment I'm thinking it should probably now get a {{wi}} template instead) Astrokey44 04:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete again. Deleted articles show a links to both wiktionary and the commons and a search of the word in other articles. Putting a wiktionary template on it would limit the access to useful several links. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• This listing doesn't belong on deletion review. If someone wants to delete this new article, they could list it on AfD. Rhobite 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Supermarket skin and Exogenous xeroderma modo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarket skin

Despite two difficult discussions with firstly the original deletion proposer, and then the deleting administrator, only destructive actions have resulted. I am a little new here and would greatly appreciate some help. I did read a very good article awhile back about good conduct and etiquette and how and why confusion occurs, but now to no avail. I understand that the article(s) are difficult to name due to the descriptive name nature often associated with medical terms, thus affecting verifiability. And coupled with with complex nature of the article(s) it appears too much for those acting in haste.

The two discussions, for consideration can be found at; [[6]]

and [[7]] discussion ended(?) 2005/12/06/18:29

many thanks in advance for your time and minds Ifca 20:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have declined to reverse my deletion or relist of my own volition because the author has resolutely refused to provide anything by way of sources. They were asked for during the debate, and repeatedly by me on my talk page. Instead, s/he prefers to ask obtuse questions questioning the intelligence and integrity of the other editors. I see that even now, no sources are provided and no explanation of the utter absence of Google and PubMed presence is explained. The AfD found this unverifiable and WP:V mandates the outcome of the debate. I ended the discussion on my talk page since, without sources, the material does not repair the AfD problems and violates a core Wikipedia policy. -Splash^talk 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Splash, I am not aiming to question intelligence or integrity of anyone, I did feel at the time that your lone decision may have been made in haste. I agree there are no sources that can be found using the exact syntax, but many thousands relating to the content of the article, namely,

    that human skin is affected by humidity, (and humidity is low in certain buildings) and over the relatively short evolutionary timescale not all human-types have adapted to resist high 'exposure' levels and this can lead to a condition/situation evidenced by sensation and visible skin change.

    medical conditions/situations are often named with a description of the particular observation, often in an alternative language, and herein lies a problem when a plethora of skin condition names develop to describe one. Now, not all skin conditions are affected by humidity, but many are, the article in question is an attempt to describe this situation that arises in temperate climates in the modern/developed world, where a great deal of the population encounters 'exposure'.

    I am now beginning to understand that the article many have been better started "An emerging situation..." [but I and others have no means of editing it at present]

    how can WP:V be a core value, part of a core maybe, but I read "no one tenet should be taken in isolation".

    WP:NOR, this is not original research, it is know about by all dermatologists and also any scientist applying his mind to it, and many architects/building planners, and heating engineers, and biologists.

    • it is know about by all dermatologists. Good. Then it should be simplicity itself to prove it. If it's so well-known to all dermatologists, then textbooks, medical journals, supermarket tabloids, self-help websites should be talking about. Yet despite numerous requests, you have been completely unwilling or unable cite references. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

      • see reply to Rossami started "There are two references pertinent..." Ifca 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    yes, I agree the article should be deleted, BUT NOT UNTIL it has been renamed or fitted in somewhere under a better title. Ifca 16:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - Properly closed, proponents of article appear not to understand what WP:NOR is about. --- Charles Stewart 22:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) but without prejudice against re-creation or undeletion if/when the author can cite his/her sources with verifiable reference(s) to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Rossami (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rossami, thank you for your comments, does my comment (above) suggesting starting the article "An emerging situation..." change your opinion ? Ifca 16:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are two references pertinent to the subject listed at the end of the article, I think more need to be added.Ifca 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, unfortunately calling it "An emerging ..." does not change my position. Others have said it better than I can but an encyclopedia is, by definition, a tertiary source. We do not create on conduct original research. We also do not publish the first report about original research. We synopsize and explain what has already been published and extensively discussed. We are not a newspaper or a research journal. We have no need to scoop anyone. We have the luxury and indeed the obligation to wait until the topic and contents are clearly verified before publication. The standard is obviously applied differently on pop-culture topics but for medical and scientific topics the established standard for a secondary source is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. So far, that standard does not appear to have been met. Your hypotheses and observations about adaptation are intellectually intriguing and I would be interested in reading the medical journal article when it's published. Unfortunately, that's not our purpose here. We choose to be an encyclopedia with all the limitations that entails.
      The two references you mention above were evaluated during the first AFD discussion. The conclusion of the community at that time was that those references did not by themselves establish confirmation of this malady. If you have other references, please cite them here so the community can evaluate them. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • the suggested word change was condition to situation, not emerging, emerging has always started the article.Ifca 01:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Rossami, Thankyou for explaining the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, I believe(believed?) that Wikipedia is something more, more akin to the original meaning Wiki, a collective "to hasten" understanding, but this may not be the philosophy of a marauding rabble. With reference to your comment about research/medical journal, I do not at present have such professional liberty. In addition I have no knowledge that I'd be scooping anyone. further citations were to be added to the article, however, I have been defending its existence since its inception, human nature to destroy what is not understood :(

but Thanks for your comments and time :) I can at present only provide more references of the same, but may well restart the article, or maybe try a Transepidermal water loss article first.Ifca 04:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, troll. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

see reply to Android79 Ifca 17:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Rossami. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment lfca seems to have changed the case for the defence: in the AfD the argument was principally that the research had not been done because of a supermarket-led conspiracy, now the argument is that the research has been done, but needs a neologism or two to be accessible to the wider public. For an article on this purported condition to be acceptable, it would need to connect to a credible literature on the topic and avoid neologisms. --- Charles Stewart 16:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Charles, why do you see it as a change of defence, not as an addition to it ?

    (is this really a trial ?, I may soon want representation and I would hate a miscarriage of justice without calling some expert witnesses, especially as the potential sentence is so harsh. Innocent till proved guilty, or Guilty until proved innocent, very black and white, but other colours exist so I'm led to believe)

    the word, I believe was conjecture not conspiracy, but conspiracy often arises from confusion.

    I agree the name is poor, so suggest a better one, BE BOLD. Ifca 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Unless you can find credible medical sources attesting to the existence of this illness, continued discussion is just time-wasting. --- Charles Stewart 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • repeated from above:"medical conditions/situations are often named with a description of the particular observation, often in an alternative language, and herein lies a problem when a plethora of skin condition names develop to describe one. Now, not all skin conditions are affected by humidity, but many are, the article in question is an attempt to describe this situation..." [Anyone reading this for the first time, has either not read or does not understand the two preceding discussions with USER:JFW and USER:Splash] Ifca 01:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rossami. I smell a hoax. Xoloz 17:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Amalgamate or Rename, this may help dispel hoax or conspiracy concerns Ifca 19:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Amalgamate or Rename Ifca 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• References comment. It is claimed above that two references pertinent are in the article. Non-admins will have to trust me when I say that they are the following to PDFs: [8], [9]. Neither of these two documents include any of the words "supermarket", "exogenous", or "modo". "Xeroderma" appears once in the second, in a context entirely unrelated. Thus they don't get anywhere. I'm beginning to fear that I may be feeding at this point, to be honest. -Splash^talk 20:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • repeated from above:"medical conditions/situations are often named with a description of the particular observation, often in an alternative language, and herein lies a problem when a plethora of skin condition names develop to describe one. Now, not all skin conditions are affected by humidity, but many are, the article in question is an attempt to describe this situation..." [Anyone reading this for the first time, has either not read or does not understand the two preceding discussions with USER:JFW and USER:Splash] Ifca 01:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as per per Rossami. When and if proper sources, online or print, can be provided that indicate that such a condition exists and is known to medical science, a proper article can be created based on such references. If such a condition is known under some other name, than the article should be created under whatever its proper verifiable medical name is. If there is verifiable evidence of reasonably widespread non-medical usage of some name other than the formal medical one, then a redirect could be created or a mention of the common name included in the article. But so far no verifiable evidence for the existence of this condition seems to have been presented. At this point, such evidence must be cited for any article on this subject to be created, IMO. WP:V is the key policy in this case. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe(believed?) that Wikipedia is something more than an encyclopedia, something more akin to the original meaning Wiki, a collective "to hasten" understanding, but few here have been constructive. Ifca 04:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • According to WP:NOT and other policy pages your belief is incorrect -- wikipedia is precisely an encyclopedia, with all the limitations implied by that designation. It is different from many traditional encyclopedias because it is freed from the limitations of paper publishing, but it is not freed from being a tertiary source, which should contain only verified information that has been previously published in a reliable source, which source (or sources) should be cited in the relevant article. Not all wikipedia articles fully adhere to this standard, but all should. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • -an interesting point for discussion. Has Wikipedia always adhered to this philosophy ? surely knowledge evolves, maybe Wiki -pedia is becoming a misnomer, and proponents of each of its tenants are defending their own belief of what is right, an aspiration of their POV, (to which we all hope to be entitled). Ifca 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • If you want to talk about the purpose of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) are much better places than here. This process page is a really lousy place for this sort of thing. --- Charles Stewart 22:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree, sorry, Ifca 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse, keep deleted, whether the argument makes scientific sense or not is of no relevance; there are two content policies being violated, WP:NOR and WP:V. They could be tackled by providing verifiable sources. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • repeated from above:"medical conditions/situations are often named with a description of the particular observation, often in an alternative language, and herein lies a problem when a plethora of skin condition names develop to describe one. Now, not all skin conditions are affected by humidity, but many are, the article in question is an attempt to describe this situation..." [Anyone reading this for the first time, has either not read or does not understand the two preceding discussions with USER:JFW and USER:Splash] Ifca 01:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You completely ignored my point: I don't care if there is a technical name for the condition in the article or not, if a source is given that proves the content, whether it is with the medical term or without, I might reconsider my vote, but you have completely tried to skirt your way around it and not given any sources, which is a violation of No original research and Verifiability. And trying to say that I didn't read or don't understand what you had said before isn't going to get you anything. I'm changing my vote to strong keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • see reply to DES (re 'Wiki' pedia) and reply to Rossami (started "There are two references pertinent...") Ifca 14:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was properly conducted and closed, and no new information has been supplied. Turnstep 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe(believed?) that Wikipedia is something more than an encyclopedia, something more akin to the original meaning Wiki, a collective "to hasten" understanding, but few here have been constructive :( Ifca 05:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • EVERYONE has been constructive, telling you numerous times about the very simple thing you need to do to change their minds: PROVE THIS CONCEPT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF YOUR HEAD. No original research, no non-verifiability. Simple. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, with prejudice. The author's convoluted attempts to avoid the most basic requirement for an article here -- real-world verifiability -- convinces me that there isn't any there there. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted. I don't mind when a newbie genuinely doesn't understand verifiability and [[WP:|citing sources]], even though they're linked from every editing screen. I do mind when a contributor does not even try to provide sources when asked. And I mind it very much when a contributor challenges these policies. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • see reply to DES above, Ifca 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. No sources provided. Don't feed the troll. android79 14:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • so where is the emotive language ? and why this vote to hide the articles content ?

With content unhidden, a troll would languish in self-made isolation, arguing off and away from this important Deletion review page. Ifca 17:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

List of The Daily Show correspondent titles

This article had a history of more than 130 edits, but was deleted yesterday as the result of an AfD with only 3 delete votes, and that's counting the nominator, plus one merge vote by an anon. (As an aside, merging a long list back into an already rather long article as suggested would not have been feasible, so the only realistic outcomes are keep or delete.) I'm surprised that none of the regular contributors voted in the AfD, and 3 votes in favor of deletion, though unopposed, doesn't seem like a solid reason for deletion. It's a defensible reason – I'm not saying the closing admin wasn't acting in good faith – but I'd like to get a second opinion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The article received, among many non signed in editors, over 15 signed in editors, none of who participated in the AfD. It looks plausible that there was a case for the defence that failed to happen in the time window: certainly I've missed some AfDs on articles that I cared about. There is a google cache of the deleted page here. --- Charles Stewart 21:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as obviously correct. I have little opinion on rerunning debates where there are a number of editors, since enough eyes pass AfD that if there were serious support it would presumably have shown up. There is little importance to the number of edits in the history if there is something wrong with the article. If people insist on rerunning the debate, then ok, there weren't many people in the first one, but that's no reason to suppose there'll be any more in the second. -Splash^talk 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on AfD. I'd be interested in seeing this deletion re-run. I know that I might have voted to keep, but never saw it on AFD. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on AfD - We've got two people interested in participating in a new AfD, which could have been enough to avoid a delete outcome on the 1st AfD. --- Charles Stewart 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, what would you say in a subsequent deletion review following a second AfD debate with about the same participation (there being no reason to expect the original participants to come along)? I'm not challenging your choice here, just wondering if we are saying that we should go in circles indefinitely if necessary. -Splash^talk 22:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The new AfD should address the concerns of the prior AfD, and if it didn't, then that point should be raised either by the closing admin or in any new DRV. It would be exceedingly legalistic to have a third AfD, but if I thought that a third AfD would bring cogent new evidence that wasn't considered in the first two, then I'd vote for a new AfD. But I'd hope that the cycles were rapidly narrowing... --- Charles Stewart 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I saw this on AfD and passed it by, not having a firm opinion on whether it should stay or go. If I'd bothered to vote, I probably would have voted to merge, but I didn't, so my opinion at this stage is irrelevant. AfD's get closed on two or three votes all the time, as we have no minimum vote requirement. Until we have one, deletions such as this one should stand as a proper application of AfD policy. BDAbramson T 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall someone having analysed past AfDs and concluded that AfDs closing to delete with only two or three votes were a little bit uncommon: far more often is the case that AfDs attract two or three votes to delete and then are speedied. If anyone knows what I am talking about, I'd appreciate a pointer. --- Charles Stewart 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That'd be WP:AFD100. -Splash^talk 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks, that's it. --- Charles Stewart 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In that quite interesting analysis, close to 20% of AfDs end with 3 votes or fewer, and over 1/3rd with 4 votes or fewer. DES ^(talk) 21:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). From everything I can tell, the discussion was properly listed on AFD for the full period. As such, we can be reasonably sure that the discussion was seen by many people. We explicitly tell users not to vote on everything. If you look at the discussion and you agree with the evident consensus, you are encouraged to move on. The fact that users did not choose to dispute the emerging consensus to delete is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to presume that they supported the decision. Caveat: This nomination was made shortly before midnight. We have asked before if the new page-per-day format leads to nominations made late in the day being under-reviewed. As far as I know, no one has yet studied this question. If we do find that nominations made late in the day are not receiving equivalent visibility, we may have to reconsider our practices. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It does seem that the average number of votes declines as you scroll down the page. One obvious solution to this is to add new AfDs to the top of the page, similar to the way other pages do. Turnstep 23:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, further discussion on this question requested in good faith. This discussion is worth having. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Insufficient reason to override the closing admin's judgment. Nandesuka 03:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep deleted, valid AfD. There is absolutely no reason to reopen it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn - it seems plausible to me that the debate would go differently a second time. I'm, as always, disappointed by those who put process ahead of product - that the AfD was concluded by the rules does not mean it was concluded well or given an appropriate amount of attention. Phil Sandifer 08:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted. A valid AFD debate with no particularly good and convincing reasons given for overturning it. As for evaluating content here, I think that having huge lists like this is about as useful as a list of who presented the news on TV each and every day. We do not need details of who took part in each and every individual comedy show. The Daily Show is absolutely a very notable series which I enjoy watching occasionally (on CNN of all places), but an individual show is shown once, then forgotten. If people want info on that, they would not turn to Wikipedia, there are other websites on the web. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - It would improve the chances of having an undelete outcome if Mark Sweep and Tim Rhymeless were to outline why they think the list is encyclopediac. Notability (the first of the three reasons to delete stated in the AfD) isn't an issue here I think: encyclopedic information about a notable topic should always welcome at WP. I'd say that the argument should be that the kind of information gathered together in this list really supports the main article, rather than being fancruft. --- Charles Stewart 15:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, here goes (I only avoided mentioning this earlier because my understanding was that this is not the place to discuss matters of content). IIRC, this list was broken out of the main Daily Show article when it got too long. The Daily Show is notable for using over-the-top correspondent titles on a routine basis, mocking various trends in serious TV news coverage. Having a list with explicit dates and titles is helpful, because by following the date link one can see what real news event the correspondent title refers to. This is more informative than having just a list of correspondent titles in the main article. The fact that correspondent titles are discussed in the main article also underlines that the topic is inherently notable. I understand concerns about fancruft, but then again that's never a reason in and of itself for deleting anything. Regarding the procedure, I could easily see that the AfD could have been closed with an outcome of no consensus and default keep. If you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see that there were almost no edits by any of the regular contributors after the AfD notice was put up. I find it hard to believe that an article of substantial length, which had been in existence for 5 months and which had received 139 edits, would receive only three votes in total. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure per Splash, Sjakkalle. Had I seen this, I would have voted for deletion, as it's trivial and not useful enough to merge, imo. I see no rationale that compels a re-examination of a validly-closed debate. Xoloz 17:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm still undecided on this one, but I think it is based on the following simple question: is the existence of newly-expressed views, which are contrary to the consensus of those who took the time to vote while the AfD was running (for a week, with a large deletion template on the page itself), a reason to reopen discussion on a deletion? I fear a yes answer will substantially increase traffic and bureaucracy, both here and on AfD. -- SCZenz 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule, no. But this article had a substantial history with many editors contributing, and was well edited in a narrowly technical sense. Given that many editors did see enough of a point to contribute to the article, none of these editors spoke up during the AfD, and the AfD had a small participation, I lean towards giving the article a second chance. --- Charles Stewart 23:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak endorse close. Three votes aren't much, but then, people could have voted on it if they had wanted to. That said, I might change my mind if significant new information is given to ascertain why the article might have had a different outcome in a new AfD. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per the theory above by Rossami. Had this been listed early in the morning, the outcome might be different, and that's not right. Turnstep 23:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - I agree with MarkSweep above and think the content is encyclopedic information about a notable topic. -HannahAviva 7:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

BORED

Dear fellow wikipedians, i myself have been a law abiding wikipedian.. but currently i have created a new article on "BORED", an organization that i founded with my fellow peers. It is an organization of 100 members worldwide, in cities such as LA, new York, Vancouver, Paris, London, Liverpool, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Sydney. But the user Shreshth91 keeps on deleting. Please give me permission to post it and protect it from deletion. Thank you - --Larryau 12:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: A examination of the deletion log shows that two different admins have speedy deleted this article. Based upon the description of the organization in the article (a student group in Hong Kong founded on November 19, 2005 and using a gmail address for a contact point) it is not unreasonable to assume that both admins saw the article as a hoax. Providing some reliable sources to verify the existence of the group would go a long way in determining if this should be undeleted. --Allen3 ^talk 13:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speaking only for myself: no. Reasons:
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it is not intended as a listing service, collection of loose information, webhost, or promotional vehicle. In effect, it's supposed to serve its readers, not its editors, by providing what the readers what to know and not what the editors want to tell them. First, your club has to have gained the attention of people, THEN you get the article, not vice versa.
  • Related to that last bit, it's pretty well accepted that the subject of an article must have some impact -- minor or minimal, but nevertheless noticable -- on the larger world. Permit me to doubt that a three-week-old club has done much more that get itself organized, if that.
  • Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable; that is, the facts in the articles must have some reliable outside proof of their existence: books, newspapers, archival documents, sourced witnesses, photographs, whatever. Your group was formed less than a month ago, and unless you can provide some third-party proof of its existence, its details, or even that anyone outside your immediate circle or yourself has heard of and documented its existence, it's going to fail that basic test.
• Good luck and all that, but good intentions won't get you special exemptions from these and other basic standards. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy delete. Sorry, Wikipedia isn't a web host. Rhobite 13:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy delete for the excellent reasons given by Calton. Thryduulf 13:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Though it doesn't quite fit as a textbook example of any speedy criterion in particular, it's something that absolutely, certainly, without-a-doubt would not survive an AfD under any circumstances, and thus should be kept deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Starblind is right. Your article would not survive AFD, Larryau. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Please use your own web site for this sort of thing. Uncle G 15:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Great page, Uncle G! I'll have to keep that bookmarked for use in future AfDs. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 20:55:31Z

• Undelete, speedy deleted and undeletion requested in good faith. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Gamaliel 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy delete. Nandesuka 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, it was speedied. Yes, we have a request to bring it back. But, I say keep deleted, even though it was a common-sense speedy. This isn't an article that we want on Wikipedia, and it would only be deleted via Afd if it were restored. Thanks to Calton for taking the time to explain why this article isn't Wikipedia material. Friday (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted One shouldn't encourage out-of-process speedies, but when one is done in a case where the delete result is clear and indisputable (even the nom. doesn't dispute this is basically a vanity page, though he hasn't used that word for it), it should be left alone. Xoloz 19:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - This is an out of process speedy made for apparently false grounds (Shreshth91 claimed group doesn't exist), first speedied 2 minutes after creation. I'd say Shreshth91's way of deleting comes close to admin warring: why no friendly message on Larryau's talk page asking what is going on after the 2nd delete? Should we be bending the rules around speedies to back up what looks like abuse of admin powers? I'd like to see Shreshth91 defend his/her actions here. --- Charles Stewart 19:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted without endorsement - I think this case is sufficiently hopeless, and enough people have looked at the content following DRV, that WP:NOT a bureaucracy applies: we shouldn't list on AfD. The speedy was pretty bad as out of process speedies go, though. --- Charles Stewart 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Tεxτurε 21:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Abuse of admin powers?!? This was a common-sense speedy. I'd have deleted it too, and I think both admins who did delete it used good judgement. Yes, I'd probably have also explained to the user on their talk page why the article is unsuitable, but failing to do so is hardly "abuse", in my opinion. Friday (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  It looks like a revert war, only with admin powers, to me. The message on the talk page would make a big difference, as would an explicit acknowledgement that there were no CSD criterion to cover the speedy, but I'd still say that this is pushing it. I hope Shreshth91 responds to my invitation to contribute here. --- Charles Stewart 22:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  There was no disagreement among the two admins who deleted it. We do have a CSD that covers vandalism, and joke articles are defined as WP:VAND. -Splash^talk 22:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  And terming it "abuse" is overusing an overused word. People should remember precisely what it means. -Splash^talk 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  I meant the word abuse, and I did not say it happened here, only that appearances suggested that. I'd like to see what Shreshth91 has to say about this, in the meantime I'm not going to speculate what he/she might have judged to be the case. I'm guessing you aren't claiming that Larryau was actually perpetrating a hoax or vandalism. --- Charles Stewart 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• So, if i get this group on some sort of publications such as newspaper, this article would be eligible... and you may delete the contact address. --User:Larryau
  • No. Self-promotion isn't the route to an encyclopedia article. It would be the case if (for example) two or more journalists wholly independent of you decide that the group and its activities deserve "in depth" feature articles in their publications, write such articles of their own (Simply using your group's press releases wouldn't count.), and publish them. Uncle G 02:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Explanation of deletion. I deleted this page because after some research, I found that the band has 0 Google hits (even after searching 100 pages). Hence, I thought that it was vandalism and deleted it. However, if the user should provided some credible references, I would be glad to undelete this page. Moreover according to CSD A7 an article about a real person that does not assert their importance or significance can be speedied and I feel that this is certainly one of those cases. However, if the community at large feels that this deletion is unjustified, I can undelete this page and move it to AFD.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation: reverting what you thought was vandalism is good faith exercise of your powers, so I retract my suspicions of admin abuse. I still think this is mistaken: if the content at Larryau's home page is a fair indication of the deleted content, it clearly does not fall under WP:VAND, and whilst it might be fair to call the content vanity, it doesn't fall under the current formulation of WP:CSD A7. I think that this is careless, and that speedying is an area where admins should exercise special care. --- Charles Stewart 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  Postscript I don't think there is any need to restore the article: the DRV has provided a review that is adequate in this case. --- Charles Stewart 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted No sources. Ashibaka tock 23:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. Nominee is disrupting the site with this garbage. Sorry, but I'm not feeling a lot of Wikilove right now. - Lucky 6.9 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

SCinet and Storcloud

The SCinet page was speedy deleted first by the reason of spam-link and second because of copyvio. SCinet is a high performance network created annually at the IEEE/ACM SC conference. It is a major part of an annual conference and has been covered by the NY Times [10] and other media. It has been around for 14 years. It is not a corporation or business, but is a network created annually by a group of volunteers from various academic, industry and government research labs. There are no copyright violations in effect. It has had a significant impact on high performance networking and computing over the past 14 years and I do not believe this deletion was appropriate considering Wikipedia has entries for Comdex and Siggraph.

The Storcloud entry was also speedy deleted for copyvio even though the page has been around since September and there are no copyright violations. Like SCinet, it is/was a part of the SC conference, focusing on storage vs. networking. This initiative only lasted a few years and is currently on hiatus. - Steve Lau 06:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. User's only edits are to this discussion. Content was added and re-added via anon IP's and sockpuppet accounts. Googling some lines showed these as clear copyright violations. One user asked that it be left on record to somehow satisfy his wife, who I assume is part of the group trying to get these pushed through. - Lucky 6.9 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, of what relevance is the fact that Steve Lau's only edits are to this discussion? He's the nominator, not a sock puppet supporter. —Lifeisunfair 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and rewrite. Both Scinet and Storcloud are real networking events that have real significance in the high performance computing community. Steve Lau works for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (as a google for '"Steve Lau" scinet' will show) and is one of principals behind scinet. It seems likely to me that he was using some of the promotional text, not realizing that it violated copyright. Lucky, please don't bite the newbies - not everyone who contravenes a rule is a spammer. Our response to these being copyvio should be to rewrite and de-copyvio them, not to mindlessly delete. Nandesuka 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've undeleted this. I'll take responsibility to make sure that the copyvio parts are addressed promptly. Nandesuka 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Nandesuka, please do not restore copyright infringing texts. Any revisions resting on such text will now need to be deleted. The only solution is to write original work. -Splash^talk 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think I misunderstood the process. Both pages have now been re-deleted and re-created, without reference to the original copyrighted text, with new text written by your humble narrator. They're, uh, very short right now. But I'll be expanding them, so please don't nuke them out from under me. Nandesuka 18:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there a chance that someone can discuss the copyrighted text, perhaps giving a reference to it? It's unclear to me what text is at issue here. Given the inappropriate ambitiousness of the original deleter, I'm skeptical that there is a real violation. — Doug Luce
• Wrong-o. You or someone was posting copyrighted material from another source. I asked several times that if you were going to add something, do it in your own words. The pages now look great thanks to the efforts of another user. - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

December 4, 2005

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Lanarkshire Council

This discussion was deleted, for unknown reason. It is linked from an archive of deletion votes (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 24). - Mike Rosoft 11:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• It looks the confusion is from that it was changed from a VfD to an AfD(hence the inital redirect on the archive); then that AfD was closed because the article had been redirected to South Lanarkshire. Seems fine to me. Peyna 15:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Really the only problem was that whoever closed it just deleted the AfD instead of marking it properly; given that it happened in a period of transition, it's not surprising. Peyna 15:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• To clear up the confusion, I suggest restoring the last page with any content [11] and then marking that with the proper closed afd templates with the outcome "deletion request withdrawn" (or words to that effect). Thryduulf 15:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I just tried to restore it so the page could be properly archived. I'm afraid I may have made this worse, though. Not sure what's going on with this page. Regardless, the content was very light. It was a nomination made on 24 July 2005 and blanked one minute later by the nominator. Uncle G's VfD->AFD conversion bot moved the blank page on 20 Sep... Okay, let's see if I got it fixed this time... Looks like it worked. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well done. I endorse Rossami's decision to undelete. There's very few good reasons to delete an VFD/AFD debate, and I can't see a relevant one being used here. Probably a conversion mistake. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

December 3, 2005

Islamonazism

This article has been redirected to List of political epithets. This topic should be covered in wikipedia as it is a notable topic, connected to real historical events and is encyclopedic , here is a recent version to review Islamonazism. I suggest the article get reinstated on its own page --CltFn 04:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - 220 Google hits, most of which are other "pedias" and completely unverifiable. This term, unlike "Islamofascism" (287,000 Google hits) has no common currency at all. FCYTravis 09:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --Victim of signature fascism 12:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong on Deletion Review - this page was never deleted and does not belong here to discuss what should happen with it. This is for reviewing process, not shortcutting arguments taking place on a talk page, or making a WP:POINT after an edit war. Take it to WP:RFC if you must, but it doesn't belong here. Peyna 14:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong on Deletion Review as per Peyna --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong on Deletion Review per above. Use an WP:RFC if you want to get a larger cross-section of the Wikipedian community involved. Deletion review does not deal with article content or redirects or anything which can be done by ordinary users via ordinary editing. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, delete and keep deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong for the reasons stated above, and is not in common currency. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong on Deletion Review as per Peyna --FRS 15:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This was in fact deleted before, and the reasons remain just as valid now as they were then. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Per Mirv, the article was already deleted by a valid VfD more than a year ago. I have speedily deleted the current article and protected the redirect, as the text inserted by CltFn was an EXACT copy-and-paste of the article deleted back in 2004. I think we can now re-open the Deletion Review. FCYTravis 19:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense but actually the article was never deleted before, cause you only just now have deleted it !! You should restore it now and wait for consensus before taking unilateral actions like that. --CltFn 19:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted, in September, 2004. The text you inserted is an *exact* word-for-word duplicate of the text that was on the page when it was deleted by consensus in 2004. I can delete the article per WP:CSD G4, "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in userspace, or undeleted per the undeletion policy." FCYTravis 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I also can find no evidence that this article was ever deleted. It was tagged for deletion on 20 Sep 2004 but the [[prior discussion was not closed out with a decision one way or the other. According to the Deletion Log, no deletion was carried out. As such, it does not appear to qualify for speedy-deletion. I have undeleted it. I will, of course, withdraw my objection if you can provide a link to a previous VfD discussion showing a clear consensus to delete and a link showing that the consensus decision was carried out. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because the deletion is too old to appear in the logs. -Splash^talk 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Now that I know where to look, I find this archive which shows that a version was deleted on 20 Sep 04, the day the prior nomination was opened. The next archive shows that the article was again deleted on 27 Sep 04 by user:SimonP who explicitly references the VfD decision. The edit history shows that the article was re-created as a redirect the next day. My apologies for the confusion. I am changing my opinion to one of endorse speedy deletion and recreation as a redirect (with a long comment on the Talk page in order to satisfy GFDL). Rossami (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually delete Phil Sandifer 21:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, although the article is not (physically) deleted the AfD stated that it should be deleted or redirected; meaning, the content should not be on the page. As a result to contest that finding where else would you go but here? I am not sure I understand why physical deletion is the issue when the goal for CltFn is to overturn the decision that the content does not belong on the page. He needs some avenue to question the decision from a year ago. Also, to not I suggested that he come here so CltFn should not be blamed for bring the discussion here, I should be. gren グレン 02:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The early "this doesn't belong here" comments were made before a VfD was discovered. It is worth pointing out also that the content above is a recreated redirect, and so only falls under the purview of the page tangentially. That said, keep redirected or delete redirect, for whatever this somewhat out-of-process vote is worth, because case for article failed at VfD, and no substantial case was made here. Xoloz 08:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment: just spell checking here. is "Islamonazism" even a word? If not, does it even warrent an article. For example, would we make an article about "Michiganism" or "Washingtonism", because this is what this article feels like. --Pat 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Muslims in business

This was recently closed by fuddlemark as "no consensus"; the AfD page is here. I count six votes for deletion and two for keeping. The closing admin states that "the comments seemed generally sympathetic to the article, and User:Durova, while advocating deletion, conceded that if the content could be better-restricted, the article would be worth keeping". This is fully misreading consensus. The article was listed as part of the effort to get rid of the more unreasonable Lists of professionals with a certain religious affiliation. Durova sums up the consensus in his statement: "We've been moving toward a consensus per WP:NOT that lists of religion/ethnicity and profession are notable when the two are demonstrably linked", and all votes to delete echo the sentiment. Pilatus 00:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would have closed this as a delete. But, we all have different ideas of consensus. Calling it "no consensus" isn't blatantly unreasonable. Before bringing it here, I'd have discussed it with the closing admin and seen if he was willing to reconsider. Friday (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I understand Mark's reasoning it just isn't the consensus that had emerged from debates in the previous days such as this (note Durova's statement!) and this. The job of the closing admin is to gauge consensus, not to impose his version of it. Pilatus 16:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, but there's a thin line between an admin imposing his version of consensus, and making his own judgement about consensus. This illustrates one problem with Afd- it's pretty much random who closes things, and different people can have vastly different views on what's consensus. I don't see that just being an admin makes one good at such judgements. I've seen some admins who are very good at it, and some who are not. Of course, it's easy for me to say that consensus was judged incorrectly in this case, since to me this article clearly needs to be deleted. We could have a panel of people who look at close Afds and decide how to close them instead of just one individual, but then we'd be adding yet another bizarre ritual to our already-bizarre deletion process. And, of course, some people think that the minute it's remotely debatable how to close an Afd, this makes it a "keep" by default. Closing things that way results in keeping a lot of unverifiable junk, in my opinion. Friday (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to know what User:Pilatus thinks he means when he accuses me of "imposing his own version of [consensus]". I'd like to assure Pilatus that I am very well aware of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, having read through it and finding it a "gripping thriller of a read, from page 1 right until the end; you'll not be able to put it down, and the surprise twist will shock you!" (you can quote me on that, for Wikipedia 1.0). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Stet. Fuddlemark gives an excellent summing up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I respect the admin's obligation to exercise judgement, but I disagree with the closer's stated rationale and I'd like to see him reconsider. I'm concerned that he's mis-characterized Durova's views in particular. -- SCZenz 09:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like for fudd to have some input here, I've pinged his talk page. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note, Aaron. Not being a regular on VfU, I'd never have noticed otherwise. Re: input, I believe I explained myself well enough when closing the AfD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the closing admin's argument was well reasoned. If necessary, reopen discussion for 5 days. Also, please review the recent discussion on List of Jewish Americans and related articles. 15:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peyna (talk • contribs)
• BTW as far as the content goes, to me this is pretty clearly not a keeper. I've started a discussion on the talk page about why I think this is so, since some people don't like discussion of the merits of the article here at DRV. Friday (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• While I disagree strongly with the general premise made during the discussion that these "list of..." articles are intrinsically valuable, that point was not rebutted during the debate. There was sufficient justification to support the closer's decision to override the strict vote-count. Endorse decision but without prejudice against renomination after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto Friday and Rossami. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• To me, this is a good example of how Afd/Drv stifles the process of achieving consensus. I believe almost anyone engaging in rational discourse on the talk page would come to agreement that this content isn't encyclopedic. However, Afd has this silly 5 day tradition, and the equally silly "whoever happens to close it gets their version of consensus" idea. Although a few people disagreed with the closing, people aren't disagreeing strongly enough to overturn. So the question is, how do we fix this without causing people to scream that we've abused the process and having it brought back to deletion review again? What period of time is sufficient to wait and Afd again? And why bother waiting, are we assuming the article will improve? That seems unlikely, as the objections being brought up are about the topic rather than something easily fixable. If consensus emerges on the talk page that this should go away, would anyone object to it being deleted without another Afd? Friday (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Such consensus won't emerge on the talk page any more than it did in the AfD. -Splash^talk 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn Close (delete). The consensus to delete is clear, here, IMOP. final votes are 6:2 for deletion. One person stated that he would "like" a reason to vote keep, but wasn't ready to do so. Even if you include this, that still makes it 6:3, still a probable delete (although not nearly as clear cut). True, one user indicted that a change in the inclusion rules would change his vote, which was a clear invitation to others to edit the page to change those rules. But no one accepted that invitation. If recreated with different rules, that would IMO not be "substantially similar" and so could have a renewed deletion debate. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - There may have been sympathetic opinions towards the article, but I am against having things categorised by race/religion/ethnicity. - Hahnchen 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:First Standard.jpg

According to the caption [12] it's published more than 50 years ago. In other words, it's already in the public domain. — Instantnood 17:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, it would depend if the copyright for the original work was renewed or not, but even so, this doesn't belong here. The image was not deleted, it was just removed from the page. Please take this discussion to the talk page for the article and try to reach a consensus. If that fails, try WP:RFC. Peyna 17:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The image was deleted. —Lifeisunfair 18:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused by the edit history from The Standard. Peyna 18:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• We can't restore images. You'll have to get it from a mirror or the original source. Sorry. -Splash^talk 18:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been unable to locate a mirror, other than Google's cache (which includes only the thumbnail version). It's my understanding that it sometimes is possible to retrieve deleted images from backups. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, not without have devs trawl through databases. -Splash^talk 18:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is to say that admins can't do it, and deletion review can't make them. You'll have to find someone with a dump and some time. -Splash^talk 18:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that this is not ordinary, and would require a developer's assistance. I'm just noting a possible solution (if other attempts prove fruitless). —Lifeisunfair 18:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So is it like we've no way to recover this image? — Instantnood 07:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

PotterCast/Pottercast

The Leaky Cauldron (website) one of the biggest Harry Potter news site on the web and as admired by JK Rowling as MuggleNet (founders of both sites were invited to interview her for the book 6 release [13]) and therefore I think it's incorrect to delete its podcast based on lack of notability. Someones also said: In the world of Harry Potter, there's MuggleCast and everyone else." This is patently untrue as MuggleCast and PotterCast collaborated on several occasions including the premier. Melissa Anelli from The Leaky Cauldron was even in the latest regular MuggleCast episode (both of these can be verified in the MuggleCast archive for November under the headers: "MuggleCast Episode 17 now available for download " and "Goblet of Fire red carpet interviews"). Someone also said the next PotterCast episode was scheduled for the summer of 2006. Also untrue. Their list of episodes shows their schedule is hectic, but certainly more than once every half a year. It's been deleted as a recreation with a lack of content, but I think it deserves to be merged into The Leaky Cauldron (website) at the very least. Please review the decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and merge both with The Leaky Cauldron (website) (and leave redirects). - Mgm|^(talk) 16:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• AfD link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PotterCast. Peyna 16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pottercast. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment please provide some verifiable evidence of your claims above so we can properly evaluate them. Peyna 16:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if TLC is notable enough to have their site included there's no reason not to merge the podcast. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've added a link to the MuggleNet archives for additional evidence of collaboration and Melissa Anelli from the Leaky Cauldron and PotterCast joining the Mugglenet founder in interviewing JKR for book 6. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and Merge per Mgm Xoloz 20:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete - merging is an editorial decision and ought be sorted out on the articles. Phil Sandifer 20:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse the original determinations. The Pottercast podcast is simply not notable enough to meet criteria. I work on a number of Harry Potter items, including MuggleCast and I believe that deletion was an appropriate decision. There was absolutely nothing unfair about the vote. I am very mindful that the spread of "PotterCruft" diminishes the genuine encyclopedic materials. Mugglecast greatly outstrps other podcasts, including PotterCast. MuggleCast has reached the number 1 slot on Apple's iTunes site on a number of occassions, while PotterCast, to my knowledge, has never broken into the top 50. MuggleCast has been the #1 podcast on PodCast Alley for quite some time. Mind you, Mugglecast only barely made it past its own AfD. As I wrote before, there's Mugglecast and everyone else -- and that's absolutely true. Jtmichcock 20:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

'Comment: One thing I should mention, the Leaky Cauldron website noted above already has materials on PotterCast, so this is not certainly an instance where people will not be able to locate information about PotterCast. Jtmichcock 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

*UD and Redirect Deletion review isn't about content issues so unless there's a policy issue with the deletion shouldn't be overturned, that being said I don't see any harm with undeleting and redirecting and having the content merged over to the leaky cauldron website article. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying the deletion was out of process. I'm saying the voters were not fully informed of the facts. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• History and Content merge and redirect as clearly stated in Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Reasons_why_an_article_might_be_requested_for_undeletion undeletion should only be used for out of process issues which would not include content issues, that being said it also says that content that can be used should be made available for other uses by means of a history only undeletion or a history merge so my proposal is to history merge them and leave a link to the last diff of that content on the article on the talk page so that those who are interested can merge the content off the history and into the main article at will. This also satisfies GFDL requirements and all policies I believe. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this kind of thing mess up the diffs in the period where both articles were edited? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't though I admit it is a fairly tricky procedure. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. It's a weekly podcast connected with a very popular Potter fan site, and several mistaken statements about it were made in the course of its deletion process. *Dan T.* 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems with the debate or the closing decision. The evidence presented above does not convince me that the decision was in error. Individual podcasts, like individual radio shows, should pass a very high hurdle before being included in an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ah, I think the next episode in summer commented was based on the line in Pottercast which was referring to the next live podcast. Most of them are recorded. I think the material in Pottercast about the podcast at the premier and the interviews with the cast needs to be covered in the website article, maybe move it to a talk subpage and merge the content (if people don't want a article namespace redirect). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge PotterCast into and redirect to The Leaky Cauldron (website), with the revision history restored in compliance with the GFDL. I'm utterly baffled as to why this didn't occur. If The Leaky Cauldron is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry (and I know that it is, given the fact that I'm familiar with the site, despite not being a "Harry Potter" fan), there's absolutely no conceivable reason not to use this text to expand the pertinent section of the article. Quite simply, AfD goofed. —Lifeisunfair 10:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reirom

This article was deleted AND protected against recreation, the archived discussion can be seen right here: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Reirom

The reason for its deletion was that this person is non-notable/vanity page. So then I shall provide proof that this subject is indeed notable.

He was well known across the emulation scene back in 95-00. His broken English and his alleged "ROM monopoly" was a matter of joke for everyone else in the scene. You can see some examples here: [14] and here: [15] A little while later he began to post in gaming forums and was responsible by a lot of Internet memes. His famous expression "am cry" was used on some gaming magazines such as PSM and by some companies such as Bungie and even more recently, Nintendo. Proof can be seen here: [16] and here: [17] He is very well known on a lot of gaming communities, such as Gaming-Age ([18]) and is as close to a Internet celebrity as you can get. In fact, he may be one of the first Internet celebrities. Now, if Wikipedia allows Internet memes articles such as Star Wars kid, Tourist guy and ORLY why can't Reirom be on Wikipedia as well? The reason it was protected is that it was being constantly vandalized, however this isn't reason to keep it deleted, it's a reason to actually create it, because the article wouldn't be vandalized if he wasn't known and noteworthy.

Therefore I ask the process to be reviewed and the page to be unprotected so that a good article can be written on it. If you have any doubts please inquire before voting. Thank you. --200.153.138.244 14:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse. The new evidence presented does not convince me that anything has changed to make this person any more remarkable than they were when the vote took place 7 months ago. The closing admin followed proper procedure. Peyna 14:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's also worth nothing that all of the other articles cited above as evidence of notability of this article have ever been up for AfD (with the exception of Stars Wars kid, which survived multiple times), so I find it hard to use that as evidence that this is notable. We need more proof that this person is not unremarkable, not proof that some other Internet phenomenons have articles. Peyna 14:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Proof was presented, Bungie, responsible for Halo series for the XBox console, used one of his expressions on their website. He was also connected with a Halo 2 leak. Nintendo used it in one of their games. Therefore he is not unremarkable. --200.153.138.244 14:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid VfD, no notability. 172 unique Google hits is nothing at all for a supposed "Internet celebrity". Hell, I have more Google hits than that, and I don't claim to be a "celebrity" of any sort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Try again: [19]. I'm not sure why Google in English returns so few results. --200.153.138.244 14:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there's even less unique results that way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is bit weird, sometimes I get more than 6000 results, yet a few minutes later if I search it again I get about 300. Probably something to do with google. --200.153.138.244 14:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Proper closure, new evidence not from sources I'd consider reliable. Xoloz 20:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How is a picture hosted on Bungie's own server and a photograph from a Nintendo game not reliable? Or is that because I don't have an username? Jesus... --200.153.138.244 00:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please be assured that your anoni-mouse status isn't an issue. One thing to know about posting here is that this is a highly specialised forum. By design it deals only with a very narrow set of criteria (although we'll ignore those rules when we feel like it, but that's another story.) This can mean that posters not familiar with DRV can feel, well, roughhoused. Browse the history of this page, and you'll understand that the response isn't personal. But do consider getting a username, it's easier for everyone. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - that was the overwhelming position of the original VfD voters (once anon votes were discounted). VfD closure was proper. BDAbramson T 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Allow to be recreated - Much of the justification for not allowing recreation appears to be based on the following non-logic: I've never heard of Reirom, therefore, there should be no Reirom entry in this encyclopedia. You can extend that further to, say , Hilbert Spaces (an extreme example, but it can be applied to any subject): I've never heard of Hilbert spaces. To me they are unremarkable. Therefore such a thing should have no place in my encyclopedia. By applying such elitest reasoning to any x subject is potentially very dangerous, and, if you will indulge me, is knowledge solipsism. Now, as far as the alleged unremarkableness is concerned, how is a Nintendo game featuring a Reirom Internet meme non-notable? Wikipedia am cry. AnIco 01:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Richard Gregg

Since I am an exceedingly new admin (promoted a day early by accident, no less), I thought I should submit my action on this for review. The page above was deleted as a page not asserting the importance of the subject, and this was appealed on Wikipedia:Help_desk#Deleted_article. I thought the speedy was borderline (the article said the individual had authored a text in 1936, albeit without the significance of the text, and had external links), and the additional info presented on the Help desk page made it clear it would be overturned sooner or later. As such, I just went ahead and undeleted it. If I did the wrong, let me know and my apologies. -- SCZenz 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I expanded this article some but it certainly still needs more work. Nevertheless, this should not be a controversial keep. I suggest closing this discussion, if such a thing is possible on this page. If somebody really feels an urge to delete the article, it should be brought to AfD, where it will actually be seen by more people who could possibly help in improving further. Tupsharru 08:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's definitely not speediable now, and I thank you for the improvements you've made. I doubt very much that there's even a reason to AfD it. I am only requesting comments on my own actions, which were marginally outside-of-process (but clear common sense in this case). -- SCZenz 08:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• The Help desk evidence and the improvement on the article now show it is NO LONGER speediable for being non-notable. I applaud SCZenz for overturning this decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted, no need to AfD Not a household name by any means, but the claims in the article, if true, are certainly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted. "Marginally out of process", but clearly common sense is just fine. And, thanks for inviting review of your actions here, even though I agree completely with what you did. Being bold and inviting others to review your boldness is a Good Thing. Friday (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• This article should under no circumstances have been summarily deleted, and it was obviously right to undelete. If you suspected that it was still deletable, you should have taken it to AfD, not here.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's deletable at all, so there was no reason to put it on AfD. This page reviews all deletion decisions, and as a new admin I thought my decision to overrule another admin ought to be reviewed; it being a deletion decision, this was the right place to bring my request. I'm not sure I understand your objection. -- SCZenz 22:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One clarification: look at what the article said at the time it was deleted and undeleted; it's understandable that two people (the sd-tagger and the deleter) both overlooked what wasn't an obvious assertion of notability. We all know it's a clear keep now. -- SCZenz 22:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose I'm asking you to show the courage of your convictions. The last thing we need is undeletion of speedies overseen by committee--a kind of sick imitation of Afd in reverse. Contrary to what some people may tell you, this page does not review all deletion decisions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't have brought this here if I had more experience, because it was quite clear-cut. For shades of grey, I think seeking the opinions of other users is invaluable; this is true for anything, but especially when overruling another admin's presumably well-considered decision. -- SCZenz 08:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Administrators are good guys generally but they do may incredibly bad mistakes sometimes. Correcting another guy's error, particularly on the magnitude of deletion, isn't a matter where good faith is in any way impugned. Shit happens, but remember that the intention is to build an encyclopedia, not bolster a bureaucracy that frequently operated only to hinder that process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Your points are well noted (except for the last clause, where I'm not sure what you mean). I will have more confidence in reversing clear-cut errors in the future. Nevertheless, "administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users" (from Wikipedia:Administrators); I feel this statement gives me the obligation to request second opinions when I'm not sure I have properly exercised the will of the community. -- SCZenz 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The will of the community has absolutely nothing to do with out-of-process-deletions. You just undelete them and, if in doubt, list them for deletion (at which point the will of the community *does* come into play). It's in the undeletion policy if you care to read it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
        • This page is for the community to determine if a deletion or undeletion was improper. If he was uncertain that his undeletion was appropriate we should encourage him to post here for review. - Tεxτurε 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted, there's a difference between non-notable and not widely known. He might be the latter, but he isn't he former. The latter certainly need to be included in Wikipedia. Peyna 15:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted, speedy deleted out of process, immediate undeletion was appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep undeleted. Bringing this here was IMO exactly the right move. Tony Sidaway has long had issues with the scope of this page, and advocates admins taking unilateral action in "clearcut" cases to a degree that many people disagree with. His view is not without support, nor irrational, but IMO it does not represent a majority view, much less a consensus. Bringign improper speedies here, either before or after undeleting them is IMO a veruy good idea, as it helps to educate people on what is and is not a proper speedy. An alternative is to drop a note to the deleting admin -- if that person agrees that his or her action should be reversed, there is usually no need to list here. There is, however, no requirement to try that first. DES ^(talk) 22:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike Lorek Fan Club

This article was deleted by User:OwenX. I feel that the AFD process was not handled, "in good faith". Instead of listing valid reason to delete the entry, or listing things they would like to see done to the entry to make it worthy to stay, comments were made about members of the organizations social lives. Then when valid points were brought up in the discussion about the organizations activities in the local community, no one replied. I feel that the arguments for the entry to stay were not even considered once the personal attacks began. Improvements to the entry could be made to make it Wikipedia worthy, but no one listed what would need to be done, the entry was simply just written off. I like the idea of a discussion process to decide whether a page stays or not, but there should at least be a discussion and all the facts should be considered. I've provided a link to the Articles for Deletion page, judge for yourself whether you think this was handled, "in good faith". [20]Ognit Ice 06:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sniff, sniff. Smells like good faith on the part of the regular contributors. As for the anons who cropped up and voted "keep", I do have reason to doubt their good faith. Nonetheless, I'm confident that a reasonable decision was reached. Friday (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike lorek fan club. I agree with User:Aurochs. Just because a topic is notable within certain circles does not mean it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ognit Ice, I have no idea what "personal attacks" you're talking about. See WP:NPA if you're confused about the term, which has a (perhaps unfortunately) specific meaning here on Wikipedia. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 06:45:59Z

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Lorek Fan ClubOgnit Ice 06:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that! To clarify to others, there are two AfDs here with different capitalizations: here and here. I stand by my opinion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 07:16:25Z

• Keep deleted, afd was proper. None of the anons had suffrage. —Cryptic (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Debate suffered from a plague of sockpuppetry; valid AfD, any less-than-ideal climate caused by self-proclaimed "club members", including "Vice President". Xoloz 20:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually the comments about the club members social lives were made before any of the club members responded. Personal attacks on peoples social lives are not, "in good faith". But its not like it matters, attacking newbies seems to be the norm on Wikipedia and this is a losing battle that's not worth pushing further. Ognit Ice 21:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There is a difference between sarcasm and person attacks, and I doubt that User:Just Zis Guy You Know? intended his comment to be any kind of personal attack. Regardless, the AfD was completed properly and even if a few users comments are found to be in violation of WP:NPA, does not make the AfD invalid. Peyna 15:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close (keep deleted). Afd was proper, and none of the comments either on the AfD or here indicate any particular notability or impact made by this organization, and of course all keep comments were from people not logged in. It would have been in better taste to criticize the article with no comments about its authors, but all those comments were in the vein of "This is so bad that anyone who would write it..." and thus were primarily comments on the article, if poorly phrased. lack of general notability is a good reason to delete, and no refutation was provided. No bar to recreation with proper verifiable evidence of notability and encyclopedic value. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

December 2, 2005

Sholom Keller

This article was deleted by User:Jitse_Niesen in spite of no consensus. Count was actually 6 keeps, 6 deletes. User:Zoe made an accusation of sock puppetry which was proven to be untrue, but influenced later votes. The person in question returned 125 Google hits including newspaper articles such as this [21], this [22], this [23], this [24], this [25], this [26]. Is a confirmed anti-war protester, who is unique (?) in that he served in both assaults on Iraq. His influence has been enormous both in his native USA as well as throughout the world, as giving a lot of justification for why we should not be in Iraq.

Incorrect assumptions were made during the Vfd in relation to him "only being listed in blogs", in spite of the article actually quoting and referencing newspaper and television reports, and included a photograph of him speaking at a public rally. The vote was influenced by a large number of incorrect assertions.

As part of this, as you may have read elsewhere, I was incorrectly accused of vandalism by User:Splash in relation to this edit here: [27] in which I changed 3 votes from "Do not Delete" to "Keep" to avoid confusion and prevent what seemed to be the steamrolling of it towards a deletion. There has been a lot of discussion about whether Splash had a right to do this, or to revert the edits.

When people say "DO NOT DELETE" it shows they don't understand the deletion process. Changing other people's comments and effectively hide this fact may not be vandalism, but it's not recommended either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This person is a very controversial figure, as he opposes official US government policy, and a number of attempts have been made to silence him. This is precisely why his article needs to be restored. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sholom_Keller. Peyna 02:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should remain deleted. The administrator provided a well reasoned basis for his decision; votes alone do not determine the outcome of AfD. The admin discounted Zoe's contributions as weak, and discounted Michan's contributions as the creator of the article. He ignored most of the IPs that voted because for most of them, that vote was their first edit. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Peyna 02:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on "newspaper articles" listed by Zordrac in his support of an undelete. (Yes, those are scare quotes.)

• 1. High school student newspaper apparently created for a class on Humanities.
• 2. "online art forum where artists can share their positive viewpoint of the world"
• 3. Website to leave messages to those that have died in the War in Iraq. Sholom Keller left the message "Johnson, You're in my prayers."
• 4. Small newspaper in Hopkinsville, KY quotes Sholom Keller in a story about Keller's then pending deployment to Iraq, “I think it’s about time we stick up for the oppressed people in the Middle East,” said Spc. Sholom Keller of Company C, 501st Signal Battalion. “I’m hoping we can finish up what was left off [in Desert Storm].”
• 5. Shalom Keller posted a comment in response to an Indymedia article on G8 protests.
• 6. A listing of events in the area includes "Iraq Veterans Against the War" with Shalom Keller speaking.

-- Peyna 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from closer: "If there had been a references to a national newspaper or magazine or something like that, I would have kept it, but blogs just don't cut it, I'm afraid.". And there were 3 such links. I provided 5 more above. Closer's own argument was fatally flawed. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is getting absurd. Of the 6 votes Zordrac counts as keep, one was himself, one was me, two were anons, and two were users who had no contribution history prior to this article. The admin who closed the Afd, User:Jitse Niesen, quite reasonably discounted the two anons and one of the no-prior-history users, and made a perfectly reasonable call. As for the stuff about accusations of vandalism, you can go read User_talk:Zordrac and User Talk:Splash and make up your own mind. I don't see any fault in the process here, and I think Zordrac is just being childish. If it helps any, I hereby retract my Keep and change it to Extreme Elbonian Delete, with Dogbert Clusters. That should seal the consensus to delete beyond any reasonable doubt. --RoySmith 02:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am the admin that closed the discussion. I have nothing to add beyond my closing comments and those of Peyna and RoySmith above. I undeleted the page and moved it to User:Jitse Niesen/Sholom Keller pending review. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? -Splash^talk 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Why what? If nothing else, 6/6 is neither consensus or a majority view to delete. The people have spoken. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Funny how often I'm seeing "passes the Google test" being used as proof of notability. Hardly! As I have pointed out elsewhere, I get over 36,000 hits from a simple Google search for my website (which is a reasonably unique string), but it is certainly not encyclopedia material. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:33:53Z

• Comment - I thought I'd point out here that I neither wrote the article or made a single edit to the article. I have no interest in the topic. However, when correct processes aren't followed, it tends to get me pretty annoyed. This is my reasoning for the undeletion request. From a personal point of view, I'd never heard of him before, and indeed had no idea that there even existed a guy who was a former soldier that was running around complaining about the very thing that he was part of. I am surprised that he wasn't arrested as a terrorist given the current climate. It is quite possible that he is not overly notable. But if you looked at the article, it was very well written and articulate, and was a good article to keep. That was my basis for voting to keep it. I am neutral with regards to this article, and have no strong opinions one way or the other. I do not personally care if it is deleted or not. The issue is the process, which was very clearly not followed - and that is not just by the closing admin's decision to delete after a 6/6 vote. There were a number of other factors, including Zoe's actions, that did not follow correct process. It was a typical example of steamrolling. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, shrill charges of incompetence and bad faith are treated with the sort of distance they warrant. Tone down the rhetoric, and try persuading instead. -Splash^talk 04:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry? I thought I made it explicit what I was claiming:

1. The vote was 6/6, which usually means "no consensus"
2. No sock puppets were used, hence it is a valid 6/6 vote
3. Claims of sock puppetry were made by Zoe, which were not true
4. Latter votes referenced the claims made by Zoe, suggesting that this influenced votes
5. Interference by other users may have influenced vote
6. Immediate AFD for the image used, prior to completion of undeletion process has added to it.

Now, if people are making their decision, both to vote for delete, to delete an article when there was no consensus, and then to vote to keep it deleted purely on the basis that well-founded suggestions of correct process not been followed, and secondly, if the very same people who were involved in that vote are now making comments here, then I think that there's something terribly wrong here. And I will say this: if correct process is not fixed up for this case, then I will use this as an example. And it will convince the broader public of the inherent problems with this system. Now, if any of you who are acting in an inappropriate manner wish to distance yourself from this, then I suggest that you start adhering to correct principles, and treating this properly. If you want to make arguments that it should be deleted on the basis of notoriety, then fine, do that. I have my opinion as to what should be deleted, and you have yours. However, we all agree on correct process, and that is the issue being discussed here. Correct process was very definitely, unequivocally NOT followed. There can be absolute no dispute about that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry? The closing admin has the perfect right, nay, obligation, to discount any suspect votes. Anyone who has a very brief Wikipedia presence or an anonymous ID is certainly eligible to be discounted, which was what was done in this case, quite correctly. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my original assertions with regards to your behaviour in this vote, and that it was used as a deliberate attempt at steamrolling a deletion. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, article was correctly deleted by counting the votes of valid voters. I never said anything about sockpuppetry, merely pointed out that one of the voters had never participated on Wikipedia before, which is a valid consideration for the closing admin. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For reference, Zoe's comments were as follows: "nn 'agitator and theoretician' " (Original listing); "They can vote (it's actually 'discuss') but the closing admin can discount them" (response about IP address votes); "User's only edit" (in response to a vote by User:FluteyFlakes88; "Your 'research' is highly flawed. I never said any such thing. I said that some people consider them heroes. My motive has solely to do with the lack of notability of this person, whose views I personally support" (in response to accusation of personal bias). I see nothing that demonstrates any accusation by User:Zoe of socketpuppetry by anyone. Please retract your statement regarding this accusation. Peyna 05:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No retraction. Her comments about IPs were effectively accusations of sock puppetry, and influenced the votes. Quite clear. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And to confirm the evidence that false accusations of sock puppetry influenced votes, there is this one:

"Delete - blogger with fairly weak Google hits. Also the sock puppet voting isn't helping my opinion either. HackJandy 07:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)"

Ergo, Zoe's comments influenced the decision towards delete. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That's what comments are for: to influence the decision. That's the whole point of the process! Did I miss something in the context here? —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:20:24Z

Good, we agree on that. Now can we agree that they were not sock puppets? I think that there's enough evidence of that. They were pretty obviously not sock puppets. False claims of sock puppetry being used to justify an article being deleted is not correct process. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppet. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

False claims of accusing other people of making false claims is not correct process. Discounting the votes of anons and people with no other, or very few, edits on Wikipedia is perfectly valid. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The only "process" that we are supposed to be reviewing is the admin's decision in deleting; not whether a certain user voted properly. The admin followed procedure and used his discretion in determining to delete the article. There is nothing to indicate that "process" was not followed. If a few voters were misinformed, you should not be concerned, since from the Admin's own statement it is clear that he took all of this into account.

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no procedural problems with this decision. The closing admin made a judgment call that was well within allowable discretion. While verifiable facts are welcome from anyone, the unsupported opinions of anonymous and very new users are routinely discounted because it is functionally impossible to distinguish them from abusive sockpuppets. Rossami (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep deleted- the closing admin did a good job. Not sure why there's such contention here. Political appeals for why articles should be kept (or undeleted) are not relevant; Wikipedia is not here for (or against) any political agenda. Friday (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• To User:Zordrac: Please careful about making assumptions. You'll only make an ass out of you and umption. First, you're assuming that User:Zoe's comments implied accusations of sockpuppetry, which they did not. They merely implied that the voters were very new users and that ought to be taken into consideration. Secondly, there is no basis for believing that User:HackJandy based his statement upon User:Zoe's comments in anyway. Even if her comment did have such an effect, she is not to blame for that. Peyna 05:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. This was a difficult one, but the closing admin made a well-reasoned decision. That's his job. -- SCZenz 05:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I nominated this for undeletion because I felt that the deletion process was a steamroll. I am now seeing an undeletion process which has the exact same contributors who contributed in the deletion process, and with the exact same result - steamrolling. My points have neither been addressed or responded to. This is, in essence, a complete and utter joke, and is acting as a kangaroo court. If the only justification for deleting something is so that you can oppose me, and the only reason for you to oppose me is to support your friend, then I think that that says it all. There is no point for me, or anyone, to make a nomination to the undeletion process when it involves the exact same people who cause problems in the deletion process. I had been advised that undeletion was fair - this has proven to be false. I am very much losing faith in the entire system. Oh, and if someone is allowed to make false accusations, but I am not allowed to point out that they are making false accusations, then that is as RIDICULOUS as it gets! I am sorry, but if you guys could look at the kind of things that you are writing, then you'd see that. I am not going to bother with this discussion any further. Its pointless. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You're trying to change the rules. The rules are, and have always been, that an admin has the right to decide whether or not to count the votes of anons and people who have just signed up recently. The decision to close was completely in line with every single Afd and Vfd closure that has ever been made. You cannot suddenly change the rules just because they fit your own personal opinion. Otherwise, anybody (especially people like myself, on AOL) could just keep voting with anonymous votes and the closing admin would have to count them. Or people could create tons of sock puppets (not -- I am not and did not in this discussion accuse anyone of being a sock puppet) to vote over and over again. Your ranting is serving no purpose other than to harden people's opinions about you. I have said all I have to say on this topic and will not discuss it with you again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Excellent close, reasoned and thoughtful, discounting of anon's within discretion, RoySmith's comment very telling, Mr. Zordrac seems to be verging on making a WP:POINT today -- his "reasoning" has approached sophistry, and his tone is certainly bellicose. Xoloz 06:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Restore - I was the "sock puppet". I've been working on wikipedia articles for quite some time but never bothered to register a username because I didn't figure it mattered. Some articles I've created are Rose Pesotta, Life and Labor Commune as well as edited numerous articles under the anarchism subcategory. The goal of wikipedia is consensus and yet near half of the people who took part in the discussion (remember, it's not a vote!) felt that the article should be kept. And yes, there were verifiable sources. Here's a few from mainstream newspapers: 1) Article from Weekly Dig, Boston's 3rd (or 4th) largest paper [28]

2) Sholom is quoted BEFORE he went to Iraq. He explains why he SUPPORTS the war, an opinion he dropped once he got to Iraq. [29]. 3) This is a carbon copy of an AP article that was run in both the NYTimes and Boston Globe but has been taken down off of both of their sites. [30]. I hope that this can be of some help in settling the dispute over this article. --FluteyFlakes88 06:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As I said, I am 100% neutral in this case - I have never heard of him, couldn't care less about him, and am not put out whether it is deleted or kept. This unfortunately means that I can't make sound arguments for it to be kept based on my own personal knowledge of him. I can only make assertions at this stage based on promise. I think that it is very clear that correct process was not remotely followed at any stage, and that in my opinion the worst offender in this was Zoe, not the closing administrator. In my opinion there was only one case of bad faith, that made by Zoe, when she made the false accusations of sock puppetry. The closer made the correct assertion that they were not sock puppets, and Zoe has since insisted that she did not mean that they were sock puppets, and indeed that they were not sock puppets. However, a number of people have since asserted that they have interpreted the closer's decision as being based on sock puppetry - this is not true. However, the fact that you have interpreted it in this way merely highlights the problems resulting from Zoe's indiscretions. This is, in essence, a clear-cut case of steamrolling. Whether Zoe did this because she hates hippies, or loves America, or what, who knows. I suspect it was more along the lines of just having a bad day and feeling like taking it out on someone. As for the rest of you, I think that you have all got in to a case of being defensive to protect your friends, and have been blinded, and unable to see what is right in front of your face. For example, accusing me of acting in bad faith by saying that Zoe made false accusations is wrong - because Zoe did make false accusations. Ignoring arguments such as there being 6/6 legitimate votes is wrong. IMO at a bare minimum the article should have been relisted. However, realistically, 6/6 is a "no consensus" vote, and is a keep. I am arguing here about process, as a part of deletion reform. My intention is philosophical, not personal. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Zoe and I have had our differences in the past, but your assessment of her behavior is off base. She did not accuse anyone of suck puppetry, nor did she do anything else that could reasonably be construed as inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 14:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The alleged irregularities simply don't exist. The discussion was valid, as was the outcome. —Lifeisunfair 14:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Looks valid. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The actions of Zoe and the closing admin are completely ordinary in the context of AfD. FreplySpang (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Discounting of votes by people who are not logged in and by users with very short contribution histories is absolutely standard in closing AfD results. So is pointing out such users "durting" the discussion. Neither of these is in any way improper, nor an attempt to "steamroller" the discussion. The conclusion that this person is not notable enough for a wikipedia article seems to be rational and well within the proper zone of judgement. a newly created, different article, with different evidence of notability would, if created, need to be debated separately. What Zoe and the closer did was perfectly proper, as many people have said here. User:Zordrac should pay attentiuon to the many and varied people who are all saying the same thing here. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tzmerth shmarya

This article was first nominated for deletion on 22 Sep 2004: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tzmerth_shmarya, with the result being a unanimous 4-0 keep vote. It was then renominated on 26 November 2005: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tzmerth_shmarya with a 1-4 delete vote, and was deleted. The argument put forward is that it was still a stub after more than a year, and hence should be deleted now.

I would like to contend that firstly the overall vote is still 5-4 in favour of keep, that secondly nothing had changed between the two votes to warrant a deletion, and that thirdly it was a confirmed valid article, just in stub form.

Please can you review this decision and consider undeletion.

P.S. I personally have no interest in the topic, just felt that it was unfair for it to be deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

P.P.S. Another possibly relevant factor was that this time around, all 4 delete votes failed to provide any reason for the deletion. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. How is "not notable" not a reason? As I interpret these two deletion discussions, the article was given a chance for survival, it failed to turn into anything worth keeping, and has now been accordingly deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:39:37Z

Also, I would point out that in my limited experience, an uncommented delete vote implies support for the nominator's viewpoint. I'm not sure I could come up with a specific link demonstrating it explicitly, though, and I certainly don't do it myself, specifically to avoid these sorts of situations. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:42:20Z

Its true that 1 of the 4 voters wrote "nn". The other 3 wrote nothing. To me that suggests a lack of discussion, and that correct processes were not followed. It was regarded as notable in its first vote, henceforth a "nn" vote without explanation is not correct. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No, three of four delete voters explicitly stated not notable. Please re-read the AfD discussion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:45:39Z

There are three "not notable" votes, plain and simple! Renata3, the nominator, clearly stated his/her reasoning, and then voted delete beneath it. Denni spelled it out in words. Rogerd used a very, very common abbreviation. Izehar did not comment. That's four deletes, three with a justification. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:11:26Z

That is false. I have quoted what was actually said below. Please retract your statement. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you have left out Renata3's comment, in which the reasoning is very clear: "This article is hopless and not notable (IMHO)." (excerpted). —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:15:35Z

The nominator? LOL. Yet another example of people acting like sheep, and precisely why this whole voting process is messed up. That's what I was getting at here. The process is wrong, because everyone acts as sheep and blindly follows someone's unproven assertions. Renata3's actual vote, by the way, is below. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're unfamiliar with formatting practices on AfD pages. It is quite common for the nominator to provide his or her reasoning in the template that goes at the top and then record the vote in summary underneath to make the closer's job easier. To interpret this as a vote with no rationale is simply absurd. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:27:33Z

Okay I am going to cut and paste here to avoid confusion and false accusations:

1st VfD more than a year ago. It was kept under "clean up" provision. But in the last there was only 4 very minor edits. This article is hopless and not notable (IMHO). Renata3 23:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC) (Cut and paste missed a significant portion of the AfD discussion, evidently! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:29:08Z)

1. Delete Renata3 23:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Delete Not notable. Denni ☯ 03:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Delete NN --Rogerd 03:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Delete Izehar 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That is 1, and only 1 user writing "Not notable" (Denni). A second user, Rogerd, said "NN". The other 2 made no comments. And indeed, not a single one of these 4 users gave any rationale behind the vote.

Compare this to the original discussion, which I will cut and paste here to avoid confusion and false accusations:

Keep -- seems interesting to me. Wolfman 06:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep - looks like it could do with some cleanup though -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 07:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Wolfman & Zaphod Beeblebrox. ScribeOfTheNile 11:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Alright, let me be the one, then, to point out that the article is misnamed. Also, it needs clarification of context. How as there a "Mossad" before there was an Israel? Perhaps that's something Everyone Knows, but it seems contradictory to me. Furthermore, all this interest on the Mossad seems...well...iffy. So, rename to Tzmerth Shmarya, if that's his name. Clean up. Geogre 14:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• After looking into this for a bit, it appears that Mossad was initially organized in 1938 for the purpose of aiding illegal Jewish immigration [1]. I don't know if this organization was reorganized into Mossad as it is known today or if the name is just a coincidence. The article Tzmerth shmarya associates him with Yehuda Arazi and the Darien II (a ship), which appear to be real (lots of hits for Arazi; sole relevant hit for Aliya Bet Darien is [2]). This article seems meaningful and interesting, although it will benefit from cleanup, and references especially. Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Anyone looking for info on the web should bear in mind that there are many alternate transliterations for Hebrew words. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now, if we were to look at that, as an analysis, we can conclude as follows:

-1) The first vote made very real assertions of notoriety, and it was discussed at length, resulting in a unanimous 4-0 vote to keep. -2) The second vote did not address the original claims of notoriety, and there was zero discussion.

This is my rationale behind nominating this for undeletion. I think that a discussion should have taken place. After all Wikipedia is not a democracy, and 4 votes with no discussion don't carry a lot of weight, do they? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And again, you seem to disagree that "not notable" is a valid reason for deletion. There are many, many editors here who consider that a perfectly valid "rationale". —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:18:26Z

I am arguing policy here, not talking about the "not notable" tag. If they had made valid assertions as to *WHY* they thought that it was not notable, then we wouldn't be here. Not a single valid assertion was made! If you check my history of voting, you will see my regularly voting delete on bands that have never released an album, on authors that have published no books, on people that have done nothing, and especially on articles on anything that picks up 0 relevant google hits. I for one think that notability is relevant in deciding on deletion. I for one vote delete about 60% of the time. If you personally think that that is too infrequent then that's fine, that's your decision. I am voting delete the same amount as the average person who votes, and my aim is to make sure that this is a fair process. At present, I do not believe that it is a fair process. You, like a number of others (mostly deletionists) have suggested that I am voting keep every time. This is not true. I have even nominated articles for deletion myself, as I did this morning on Mamnuts. Suggesting that I don't want anything to ever be deleted is very untrue. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Never, ever did I suggest that you are voting keep on every article; in fact, I'm positive I have seen you vote delete (maybe on Slibe?)! I am not sure yet whether or not I'm really a deletionist, but regardless of whether or not I am, I certainly see the value in the inclusionist point of view. Where I have problems, as you have probably noticed, is when articles are extremely poorly written (and I consider articles with a clear advertising tone to fall under this description). I haven't put a lot of thought into this yet, and this isn't the place to do it, but roughly: I think in such cases, it is not worth the collective effort of Wikipedians to maintain these articles. Wikipedia would be better served if the article were deleting, leaving a good-intentioned author a nice, clean slate to start with. I'd be happy to continue this discussion elsewhere! :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:59:33Z

I try my best to always leave nice positive notes when deleting, if it is a good faith attempt. For example, often with band vanity, where they are a struggling band that really needs a bit of advertising to get somewhere, and probably created the page in the hope that Wikipedia will advertise for them, I have left them a little note of encouragement. Being in a band is a really tough thing - whilst 1% make it, 99% don't, and for most it is a big money and time sink. Its worse than being a student, because at least if you're a student then you're going to get something at the end. And a lot of these artists are really good. Indeed, if it weren't for Wikipedia rules, I would probably think of allowing some of them to be kept. But I am big on following rules. It is very important to me. I can disagree with the rules, but I believe in trying to change the rules through argument, not through disobeying them. That is a big part of my philosophy. That's why you see me arguing on here, rather than just going ahead and re-creating these arguments. By the way, I have no idea what the article above was about, or what it was called, or anything. I don't think I researched the article at all before voting. I did enough research (per the original vote) to verify that it was notable. I voted "keep" on a matter of principle. I was not originally going to vote for undeletion because I really don't care on a personal level. However, because I am very neutral on this individual issue, I thought it was a good case of something which I could use as an example of the need for deletion reform, and I felt that the best way to do this was to go through this process. I actually thought that it did have merit and would be undeleted, and, if not for the whole controversy with the other vote, I suspect it would have. Which leaves me to ponder whether I should have nominated the one above for undeletion, given the manner with which the original vote was steamrolled. Tzer--- whatever his name was wasn't steamrolled. That was a case of sheep-ism. It was a case, as has been described in many other cases, where a nominator made an assertion based on a personal bias, an assertion that was not backed up with any research. And then everyone else just played follow the leader. That's about as simple as it gets. And IMO it should be renominated for deletion. I don't think it necessarily should be kept - I just think that there should be debate. Whether it ends up being kept or not I couldn't care less. The issue is one of process and fairness. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're generally doing a good job, and I really appreciate having someone around who will make an effort to save noteworthy topics from deletion—assuming you're willing to do more for the article than cast a vote. I make an effort myself, believe it or not. However, regardless of your philosophy, some of your comments here appear to be seriously misguided, to the extent that it appears you're trying to make a point. If you feel undue hostility from other editors, that may be why, and this isn't really the place to discuss it.

As a specific example, you note that you're big on following rules and accuse editors of steamrolling in the process of deletion. However, I believe there's a not-so-fuzzy distinction between steamrolling (and sheeply voting) and the simple expedition of bureaucracy and exercising of one's best judgement. You must keep in mind that many of the "rules" around here are only guidelines, and editors are free to disregard them when they feel it is justified. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 08:45:14Z

• Endorse closing (keep deleted). Again, I see no procedural problems with this decision. The first discussion was clearly a qualified keep with essentially every participant in the discussion noting that the article needed to be cleaned up and verified. However, the edit history of the article clearly shows that no such clean-up or verification occurred. A year is ample time for someone to have come forward. Since no one did, the renomination was entirely allowable. This was a very reasonable decision. It does not prevent someone from recreating the article in better form and with sources cited. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No prejudice against creation of a new article that follows NPOV and cites sources. -- SCZenz 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This was a valid reconsideration which occurred nearly a year after the first vote. The voters' intents were sufficiently clear. To void the vote because one of them used an abbreviation, and the final vote simply voted, would be a pretty bad case of the uber-bureaucratic mentality that some have complained of. Xoloz 06:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it was given a year to be cleaned up. It didn't happen. Deletion was fully justified. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

List of modern day dictators

This debate was pulled after 5 days amidst grerat controversy. One editor asked for an extension of the debate. Having missed the debate by minutes I am frustrated it closed so soon and I was unable to vote and 5 days seems too soon to close such a controversial debate (it closed lacking consensus either way) and I am making a request to see the debate opened for another few days, SqueakBox 14:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The debate should be left open for a while. I don't see any need to hurry with these things, and this is a fairly difficult one to evaluate. I voted delete but I could perhaps have been convinced to change my mind. I wasn't entirely sure of my vote, and I think that's probably common. It's the same with people who voted to keep. You leave it open longer, you improve the chances there'll be a more workable outcome. Everyking 15:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said-- and better formulated than my own request to extend the discussion period at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. Administrators have the discretion not to follow arbitrary timetables when it best serves Wikipedia, and they should not shy away from using it. 172 15:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. My personal view is that the article should have been deleted, but there was not a consensus to support that decision, and I closed the debate after the standard 5 days lag time (actually, the AFD started at 03:12, November 26 and closed 13:20 December 2, so it was open for more than six days.) because it looked unlikely that one would really develop. Just reaching a two-thirds majority would require something like twelve more "delete"s, and that is assuming that nobody throws in a "keep". Note also that 172 has been actively campaigning for votes on user talk-pages [31], [32], [33], [34] and about 20 other such notices. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, there have been a lot more than twenty. The users who have been receiving the notices don't seem to mind; those commenting on the matter have stated that they were happy to get them. I also appreciate it when I'm notified about important AfD votes. I don't follow AfD on a regular basis, meaning that without such notices I usually have little idea about what's going on myself. With the additional feedback from those who have not gotten a chance to take a look at the discussion, I can't rule out the possibility of a consensus emerging if the vote is extended for a few days. 172 15:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Nominator says it "lacked consensus either way," so the proper action was not to delete. The policy is still "when in doubt, don't delete." By all means work with the article. Keep the NPOV tag on it indefinitely as far as I'm concerned... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close, don't relist I voted to delete and would personally like to see this article gone, but I also doubt that a consensus is going to develop on this AfD. I disagree that many people are going to change their votes. Even if this were to happen, it's just as likely that delete voters would decide to keep instead. As Sjakkalle pointed out, there would have to be a flood of delete votes (without any additional keeps) to even approach the lower bounds of consensus. I'm not entirely against extending the AfD, but a consensus just seems exceedingly unlikely at this point. Carbonite | Talk 15:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn - in fact, absent a very persuasive reason why this is not permanantly POV, I will be overturning this myself. It is not appropriate to keep the NPOV tag on it forever - the point of that tag is a call to fix things, not an excuse for POV writing. Phil Sandifer 15:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer, There's a clear procedure about what it takes to overturn a decision (three-quarter supermajority to overturn, simple majority to re-list). Striking out on your own by unilateral decision would be inappropriate --RoySmith 16:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As has been said many times, a vote cannot overrule NPOV. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As soon as all the listed names are appropriately annotated (as good progress has been made towards), it will no longer be appropriate to include the NPOV tag. It is certainly not a permanent template. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to RoySmith, it's not much of a "unilateral decision" to relist the discussion for a few more days, as is often the case when an article is subject to a strong case for deletion but is not deleted after 5 days because the deletes happened to be at (say) 60 percent (as is the case here) instead of the needed 67 percent. 172 19:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone has changed administrative guidelines without telling me, 75% not 67% is the minimum threshold for consensus on deletion. And 80% is much preferred. If the vote had been hovering at 72%, I would absolutely support keeping it open longer. But I just don't see any real probability of the vote moving from 60% to 75% by staying open. I don't think it's likely it would reach 67% either, but even if it did, that would be "no consensus". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "consensus" is not as high on AfD as it is on RfA, where I think the 75% at the lowest standard happens to be applied. 172 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A quick search doesn't show me a page stating exactly what supermajority is a guideline. But I've frequently seen complaints about AfD results where the ratio was close to 75% (on either side). And non-politicized AfD's are often (almost always) closed as "no consensus" when they stand at 70% delete.

• Endorse Close. I'm pretty much in the same camp as Carbonite. While I did not express an opinion during the debate, if I had I would have said to delete it since it is hopelessly POV. Still, I agree with User:Sjakkalle (the admin who closed the discussion) that no consensus was reached, so I think he did the right thing by not deleting the article, and the decision should stand. Wikipedia is imperfect, and there will always be things we disagree with. Move onto something else and get a life. --RoySmith 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• The core problem appears to be that some people consider this inherently POV and some consider it quite the opposite. Each side shouts at the other that they are wrong. One side, just above, offers to shout with their delete button. Until the editors reach agreement one way or the other, there's no call to delete it. -Splash^talk 16:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  If the editors reach agreement to overrule NPOV, the editors should be overruled by NPOV anyway. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'm pretty certain you understood precisely what I said, so you're entirely aware of how circular your reply is. -Splash^talk 16:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse Close - Tεxτurε 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist Debate closed too soon. 60% were in favour of an action. The debate had not finished. More people were coming to vote all the time. A consensus was highly likely — either delete, keep or (most likely) we all agree that we can't agree on what to do. By cutting the debate off before it had come to a natural end, all that has been achieved is to annoy users who will feel that they have been denied a right to participate, probably set off edit wars over contents, and ensure a quick re-entry for the article on AfD. If it had been allowed to end naturally, people would simply have agreed to differ and dropped the issue. It is a classic example how not to end a controversial debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I follow your reasoning for why more votes would lead to a consensus. With over 50 votes in the AfD, we have a fairly good sample size to show that support for deletion was around 60%. Is there some reason why there would suddenly be a flood of votes for one side of the debate? As unfortunate as I believe the result is, it falls squarely in the realm of "no consensus". There really wasn't any good way to end this AfD because there would be plenty of people unhappy with either result. Carbonite | Talk 16:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks unlikely statistically, but from my position being among the users at the center of the discussion, I think we were reaching a climax as the delete votes finally coalesced into a coherent position in the last couple of days (after my mistake of initially putting up a brief and weak case for AfD-- assuming that the delete concerns would have been a lot more obvious to most users-- was addressed) that could have gone either way. At the last minute I do think that the votes would have been much more skewed one way or another, either moving toward a consensus for deletion or toward a consensus for keep. My guess is that relisting the vote will contribute toward a more finalized and well-accepted outcome one way or another. Relisting does no harm. So I don't see the point in doing so, especially given that some are expressing an interest in the AfD after not having had the chance to participate earlier. 172 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • FYI, if there is a resaon why Jdtirl thinks a consensus could be reached, it could be attributed to 172 40+ "invitiaitons to vote" to his freinds, which accounted for most (c.17/18) of the "delete" votes.
• Endorse Close - If there are certainly some dictators there is no reason why they cannot be listed. The only constructive way forward is to allow the article to develop to see if consensus will be reached. Further debate at this point would shed no light, only more heat. Let the article develop and then see if a consensus can be reached. There is no urgency here - and the article was listed for over six days, so it certainly wasn't colsed early. jucifer 16:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse Close - I have not tried to count the exact votes, which looked modestly tough with all the interspersed comments. But neither 60% nor 67% would be a consensus for deletion. Consensus is 75-80% (roughly) delete votes. There was nothing close to that shown, and no skew in that direction with the more recent votes. And it certainly wasn't a case where only newbies or sockpuppets voted to keep, experienced editors opined in both directions.

I'd request, 172, that you give up the deletion effort for a while, and work on providing helpful annotations in the new table format. A sentence or two can provide a lot of context for why someone is sometimes called a dictator, by whom, and so on. Me and several other editors have done this. Why not give us a couple months to try to shape this into an article that even you would think is worth keeping. If you don't think it has succeeded then, renominate it. (WP:FAITH and all). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait and see. I the meantime I think that your efforts on the article are commendable. Regardless of the other problems, the work that you are doing to ensure factual accuracy is essential if the article is to be kept. 172 19:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• A difficult decision for me, since as a matter of principle I don't see any reason we can't continually readdress questions that remain disputed. However, for this particular deletion decision I don't see that much is going on at the AFD to move toward a consensus. There is a slim possibility that new votes will make the outcome clearer, but there does not appear to be any ongoing consensus-building discussion that we are compromising by closing this AFD now. I would instead recommend that this be taken to a more discussion-friendly environment, like the talk page or RFC, and any consensus developed there can be presented to the community for endorsement in a new AFD. On the whole I endorse the way this was closed. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close. There's clearly no consensus, and if done properly this could be NPOV. However it is not NPOV as it now stands, and I support the removal of everyone on this list until a clear definition is agreed upon and sources are cited for why each entry fits. -- SCZenz 18:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close but relist promptly. It sounds like a number of us simply missed this one. Nandesuka 18:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist per Phil Sandifer/Snowspinner and FearÉIREANN. I hate the role in which I've found myself. I never much cared for negative feedback concerning my own administrative actions when I was doing a thankless job that someone had to do; but content issues trump personal considerations on Wikipedia. Snowspinner's maxim "a vote cannot overrule NPOV" is a principle that editors must insist on if Wikipedia is going to follow encyclopedic standards over pressures from certain editors that have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. 172 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close Valid AfD closed thoughfully by a serious admin within his discretion. Sanction Mr. Snowspinner, and kernoodle him with a kerfuffle of poofwiffery, if he follows through with his less-serious (goofy) unilateralism. Don't mind relisting, however. Votes must start afresh, as it would not be a reopening. Xoloz 19:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close: When an admin takes the time and initiative to close an AfD that has been passed over by others because they know it's going to be hairy, they take the time, do it honestly, and then have to come here, it is discouraging. Closing admin did all of these things. Keep it closed. Wikibofh 21:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close. The discussion quickly became acrimonious after an ill-considered remark by User:Zoe and outright rudeness by article author User:Juicifer, who remained rude even after returning from a ski trip. There is no chance of it producing a consensus. Do not relist or renominate because several people are working on the article. Gazpacho 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A totally unfair and unneeded personal attack. Please withdraw jucifer 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Eh? we're going to try to reopen an afd after its closure? Is deletion review broken now too? :-( Kim Bruning 00:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (leave as "no consensus") but without prejudice against a re-nomination after a reasonable period (at least a few days to let tempers cool). Rossami (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close While I think 5 days is too short, that 7 days is more appropriate this time of year, and 10 to 12 days should probably is needed in the slow months of summer to get a proper sense of the community, there is no reason to extend the vote for this particular article as opposed to others, other than that one side has a campaign has ramped up. Citations for the views is the way to handle something that is allegedly "inherently POV", and wikipedia has been able to handle far more "inherently POV" subjects, such as when human life beings on the abortion issue, in a quite enclyclopedic manner. Dictators are easy by comparison.--Silverback 09:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reopen. Reasonable request for continuation of a debate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Obvious no consensus, and with no apparent direction in the comments, none expected. Any votes here for other than Endose close are therefore more likely based upon the user's opinion of the article, rather than the merits of the deletion review. ^BlankVerse 17:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close and present closer with something shiny for their effort. How much better a job than this could we possible expect a person to do? The article sucks, no dispute, but the arguments to delete just weren't there. The opening of an RfC was service above and beyond, and the considerable level of respect I had for the closer has just gone up 3.14% - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Skull fuck

I saw that the delete debate on Skull fuck ended up with a speedy redirect to Necrophilia after only one comment. I can't tell what was in the article, but I'd just like to say that this doesn't seem a proper redirect. Skull fuck is a hyperbolic expression of violence (e.g., "I'm gonna skull-fuck you"), I think. I'm not saying the entry article shouldn't be deleted, but shouldn't it have been a redirect to some sort of Slang article rather than Necrophilia? Herostratus 22:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• It appears the entry is deleted altogether, not redirected. I think deletion is the right thing, since WP isn't a dictionary; but the meaning of the term doesn't have anything to do with necrophilia, but is rather a violent term for fellatio, suggestive of forcible rape in this manner. See, e.g. [35]. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• I would support a redirect to fellatio. Offensive colloquialism heard in locker rooms, college dorms, etc.Youngamerican 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• I brought this up for a second AfD and things were clarified; the article was misguidedly redirected and then the admin corrected the problem with a proper delete. The redirect was inappropriate and it was corrected. Peyna 05:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Some article ought exist on this topic. I am wholly unconvinced that a redirect or the deleted content is the article that should exist. So I'll go with endorse close but remind people that deletion is not about salting the earth on a topic and never allowing it to return in any form. Phil Sandifer 19:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If an article on this topic were created in the future that was not the same as the article that was deleted, it would be considered just like any other article. Peyna 15:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

December 1, 2005

Mental Imagery

I move to undelete a cluster of articles with the titles: Mental Imagery, Motor Imagery, Visual Mental Imagery, and Auditory Imagery. These pages were deleted due to perceived copyright violation, and because some users thought they contained OR (see here).

I am a research aide in the Stephen M. Kosslyn Neuropsychology Lab, and the creator of these articles. I posted them in my capacity as an employee of the Kosslyn Lab, and have been granted permission to do so not only be the three authors by whom the original journal article on which they are based was written, but also by the publication, Nature, that published the original article.

Furthermore, these articles do NOT contain original research, but are rather a summary of work with cited sources, as in a review. The information they contain is from reputable sources, as confirmed by the editorial staff at Nature.

I am a new and inexperienced Wiki user, so please forgive me if there is some reason I am missing why Wikipedia should not host these articles. If there isn't one, please undelete them.

Thanks.

KosslynLab 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Unless the text can be released under GFDL, which a journal article likely can't, we probably can't use the original article texts (permission or no). However, I am still trying to figure out how Wikipedia:No original research could have been applied to ideas cited in Nature. Unless there's something I'm missing, certainly a rewrite in NPOV that cites reputable sources could not be deleted. Anyone else know what's up here? -- SCZenz 21:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm having trouble finding the deleted articles. Auditory imagery exists and is not deleted but the others appear to have never existed. Do you have the names right? I looked for Mental Imagery, Motor Imagery, Visual Mental Imagery and none of them have any deletion history. - Tεxτurε 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind... found them at Mental imagery, Motor imagery, Visual mental imagery. If you can answer the GFDL question or would like to restart the articles without infringing on a non-extendable copyright then go for it. - Tεxτurε 21:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete - I am not sure if I am allowed to vote here, or if this is not for admins, but, if I were to be allowed to vote, I would suggest undeletion for the reasons listed. It needs confirmation of course in order to abide by copyvio, but that is a separate issue. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, of course. Restoration of a copyright violation is totally inappropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per Zoe. I would have no problem if the author would like to start afresh, as SCZenz suggests (in fact, I think it's an interesting topic and would like to see it discussed on Wikipedia!), but there's absolutely no reason to undelete the article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:04:48Z
• Comment Can someone please explain to me why, even in light of the information I have provided above as to the origin and permissions status of this material, it is still considered copyvio? KosslynLab 19:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if you are the author, articles published in Nature are copyrighted, and you would have to get their editorial approval to republish the material here. It also has to be specifically released under the GFDL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As noted in my original statement I HAVE obtained editorial approval from nature specifically for publication on WP. Furthermore, the articles in question are adapted excerpts of the original article. How do I get the article "specifically released under the GFDL"? KosslynLab 00:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You need a letter from them telling us that you have the right to specifically release the information to GFDL. Then you need to post it on the article's Talk page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Will an email suffice? I have one. KosslynLab 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In light of your comments and some friendly advice from Rossami, I will specifically request that Nature Reviews Neuroscience release the content under the GFDL (not just for publication on WP, for which they have already agreed), and I will consult with Prof Kosslyn and the other two authors to make sure that they understand the provisions of the GFDL and are willing to license their work under it. Assuming this all goes well, what documentation do I need to provide (and in what form) in order for these three articles to be undeleted?
  • I belive that an email specifically staing that all relvant rights holders have aggred to relase under the GFDL with a copy sent to "permissions at wikimedia dot org" and another copy posted on the talk page of the article involved, should do the trick. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission for more inforamtion. You might want to use {{Confirmation}} on the relvant talk pages -- after the email has been forwarded to wikimedia as mentioned above. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cobbstealing3rd.jpg

Image was removed for having the {{nosource}} tag, but as it was a photograph of a 1909 event, it should qualify for a {{PD-US}} tag instead and be restored. Caerwine 21:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think images can be undeleted, unless things have changed on the technical side. You could reupload it with the proper tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Christopher Parham is right, we can't restore images because MediaWiki doens't have that feature (yet; it's being written). Note also that simply adding a tag doesn't meet the requirement for having a source — we can't check that it is PD-US without a source proving that it was taken when you say it is. -Splash^talk 21:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, had anyone bothered looking at the article, particularly [36], that would have quickly been sorted out. So yes, this was a bad deletion, but there's nothing we can do now. Shame on the admin who did it - image deletion is non-reversable, and thus requires extra care. Phil Sandifer 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Found the photo on a mirror and restored it. Be more careful, guys. Phil Sandifer 21:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I also see several redlinked images in that article, which is bad on the deleting admin's part. -Splash^talk 21:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I retrieved all but one of them — the mirrors were missing the coca cola advert, so I took it out of the article. -Splash^talk 22:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Actually I came across the redlink to this in the Charles M. Conlon while stub sorting. Normally I just go ahead and delete the red link while doing the sorting (by the way, this is far from the first image red link I've come across while stub sorting), but the text there was enough to make me wonder if it should have been. Anyway, thanks! Caerwine 23:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert of Basevorn

Please see, for context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_of_basevorn

This article was marked for deletion on the basis that it was "original research," and should be removed "unless someone can be bothered to take a scythe to it and trim it down to a proper article".

It wasn't really original research, any more than a standard encyclopedia article is, just a matter of digging up and collating of facts, nothing "original". But it was not sufficiently documented, so it may have looked like unsupported speculation or something of that sort.

It was, however, a bit turgid, and did not read like a web-based encyclopedia entry. But the author (my student; that's how I know) then in fact did trim it into a more appropriate shape.

jfg284, who had supported the deletion, saw these changes and commented: "The author has cited sources, making it not really original research any more, and improved formatting to make it read less like a paper. It looks like he was bothered to take that scythe and trim it. Still not sure if it fits relevancy, because 14th centruy isn't so much my field, per se. Would vote keep other than this relevancy problem, now."

I can assure you of the relevancy. There were three major strains of rhetoric in the middle ages (and rhetoric was a Big Deal back then, one of the seven liberal arts that constituted the educational curriculum), and Basevorn was one of the most significant figures in one of those strains. Perhaps the author could add something more explicit about the Basevorn's relevance?

Since the formatting fits your requirements, and the relevance is high, can this decision be reversed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaHa (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep undeleted for now, but feel free to relist for more input. Only two votes to delete, nominator expressed doubt about deletion; it's not clear what the conditional delete voter actually wanted to happen but certainly there was an attempt to address at least some of those concerns. All in all, worth a second look. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep recreated, re-list at Afd. It appears the thing was just reposted by someone (other than nom.) Agree with Mr. Parham that the AfD is not iron-clad, given the insertion of sources, and the doubt of several voters. I support a second AfD, to give the community time to evaluate the revised article. Xoloz 03:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted I was one of the two voters for deletion on the initial pass through AfD. Following discussion with Prof. Randy Harris of U. Waterloo, I think this article (hopefully with improvements, and more supporting articles dealing with the subjects of rhetorical styles and their development) belongs in Wikipedia. I expect these to appear, and Wikipedia to benefit thereby. Pete.Hurd 04:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

November 30, 2005

Body parts slang and Body parts slang 2

I would like these undeleted. I am not an admin, so I do not know if there were any problems with the article other than WP:NOT-related, but I am willing to transwiki the articles to Wiktionary so that this useful guide for, e.g. doctors (CMAJ ran an article on foreign-language slang for body parts, targeted at pediatricians working at hospitals servicing many non-English speakers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unforgettableid (talk • contribs) 2005-12-01 01:57:06 UTC (UTC)

• We have already discussed this, and the result of the discussion can be found in the #Recently concluded section below. The articles have already been transwikified to Wiktionary, too. Uncle G 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• A useful guide for doctors??!!You did see the articles once, right? They're an endless collection of slang that successive editors overheard in their local pubs. We already discussed this, as Uncle G said and the stuff has been transferred to Wiktionary. -Splash^talk 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, since it has been transwikied already. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This was just discussed; there is nothing remotely useful to a doctor; it is already at Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Rossami. Xoloz 19:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I never saw the articles, and according to what I read, I thought they had not been transwikied. That's why I had put in the request originally. Oops. :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Things that have been transwikified are listed in the Wikipedia:Transwiki log. Uncle G 23:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Image talk:Autopsy of a Japanese victim killed in the Jinan Incident.jpg

I would like this image talk page undeleted. It was deleted by TheCoffee on 29 August 2005 just because it was an "[o]rphaned talk page." The deletion was done as part of the orphaned talks project and without vote. But I think the discussion in the deleted page is quite useful for us. --Nanshu 23:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete, since it is not an orphan. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete if it contains material not available elsewhere. Depending on what the content is, moving to a subpage in project-talk space and deleting the redirect might be appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• The image is still there and shows no signs of ever having been deleted. I'm not sure how this was ever characterized as an orphaned talk page. I'm guessing this was an honest mistake. Undelete. Rossami (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I imagine it was mistakenly listed at User:R3m0t/Reports, perhaps generated by a bot. So, perhaps it might be a good idea to tell them about the error, so they can fix the bot appropriately? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, original reason for deletion appears faulty. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think that in general we shouldn't be going around deleting talk pages that contain a reasonable amount of material on the talk page or in its history. There seems to be a speedy criterion for talk pages and that is almost certainly a mistake. Talk pages occupy their own namespace and the talk pages of deleted articles present no housekeeping problem whatever. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wessex Hall

→AfD nomination (multiple)

I would like for this page to be restored as Wessex Hall is part of the important story of how the University College Reading, then part of Oxford University, became a University in it's own right. I have been researching along with other students, the history of Hall for sometime. It has taken us a long time to try and research accurate information as part of a project within the hall and it will take time to sift through nearly one hundred years of history. The project is encouraging students to spend some time doing something useful rather than sitting in the Students' Union drinking, furthering education and knowledge instead. We were going to start expanding the article and 'colouring in the gaps' in the next few weeks but it makes harder if we have to start from nothing. I believe that although the current phase of the project is not visable to the online community it does share a lot of the social values that Wiki does.

• I was the closing admin, so I'll just make a brief personal comment: I think that, of the 4 articles deleted here, Wessex Hall is the only one that is at all undeletable, both from an AfD point of view and a content point-of-view. Two of the others were single-sentence stubs and another read like an extract from a start of term advert. That has to be weighed against what actually happened in the debate, however. Note to nominator here: Whiteknights Park and Reading University do both mention the halls, and probably taking the advice in the deletion debate (linked above) about adding summary info to Whiteknights Park is a safe course of action. -Splash^talk 02:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Won't it look a little silly in the middle of an article about an estate that it has been linked to for less than a quarter of it's history?. -sgu03mbt02:59, 30 November 2005
• We recently posted a letter with just 'Wessex Hall' on it in Northern Ireland and it reached us here in Reading, so it cannot be that much of a generic name!
• Comment. No assertions of notability were given in the AfD, which explains the deletion. If, as implied above, the dorm is especially notable for some reason, then it should be undeleted and relisted. Can we get a clarification on the way in which "Wessex Hall is a part of the important story" of etc....? -- SCZenz 03:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• If you are thinking in terms of just a "dorm" you are bound to assume it is trivial. British/US confusion here? Jameswilson 03:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Is the answer to SCZenz's question "No." ? Uncle G 03:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not assuming anything. I might be ignorant, which is why I'm asking for more information. (And in case you think there are no dorms with distinctive characters and histories at U.S. universities, and so I'm not aware of such places, I assure you that's not the case.) -- SCZenz 08:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC

• • Right then, as you know, older English universities are divided into colleges. They are the main focus of identity. I went to Oxford, and I would be surprised if anybody ever argues that individual Oxford colleges dont deserve their own article. I would say that 95% of my university experience was of my college and only 5% of the rest of the university. Ex-alumni return to their college not to the university.

At modern universities such as Reading which do not have colleges halls are, whilst not the same, certainly the closest equivalent. For example, somebody wrote that ex-students of Reading prefer to join their Hall association.

I am arguing that the mere fact it is a hall is in itself sufficient notability. Of course there is less literature because it is of recent foundation. As for Reading University in particular, I have never been there, so no comment! Jameswilson 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• If there is interest in an article and it does not breach any rules, why not keep it? It is very unlikely to offend anyone. Wiki has plenty of other articles which are a minority interest. We have at least 20,000 ex-members! Wessex was one of the first halls, if not the first to accept women to Reading - research is still ongoing.
• The previous article cited no sources whatsoever. One way in which you can change editors' minds is to list the sources that you plan to cite (You say that you have sifted through "nearly one hundred years of history".) this time around. Uncle G 03:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Citing can be added to the page with references to local government documents, archived documents, University documents. E.g.
  

Andrews, S. (2005). Wessex Hall. Reading, University Press.
Anon. (1917). University Diary. Reading, University Press.
Anon. (1917). Wessex Hall JCR Minutes 1915 - 1917. Unpublished - see University of Reading Archive.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.176.79 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-30 12:40:36 UTC (UTC)

• Keep deleted unless sources are presented here per Uncle G, in which case, assuming they're half-decent sources--like his hypothetical examples--I'll change my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those aren't my examples. I didn't write that. I've added an {{unsigned}} I've had a look to see whether that book has been published. I haven't found it yet. Uncle G 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry. Since the 2005 book didn't give the author's first name or an ISBN, I assumed it was a hypothetical illustration. If it is intended to be a real source, let's have the ISBN, please. Google Books knows nothing of this book, and the three references to "Wessex Hall" seem to be to other Wessex Halls. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Dpbsmith. Original article doesn't appear to establish notability. --Deathphoenix 15:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Those who think it notable should create a version that explains the notability. If they desire to see old versions for that, they should use the "E-Mail this user" link from my userpage, and I can provide them. Phil Sandifer 22:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• None of the deleted articles was even remotely a candidate for deletion. They should all be restored as redirects, at the very least. Redirecting in the first place would have saved us all the bother of the deletion debate and of this review. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The process was followed. Those that want the article kept should write an article that establishes the notability of that particular dorm. Pilatus 02:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist Wessex Hall. The paragraph reading Wessex Hall was founded in 1913, as the third Hall for women at University College Reading. It was part of the University of Oxford until, in 1926, the University of Reading was established as an independent institution. Wessex is now the third oldest surviving hall after Wantage (1908) and St. Patricks (1912). provides a good foundation for notability, and apparently sources exist for claims. This article has very good prospects for surviving a 2nd AfD, and good prospects for future growth. --- Charles Stewart 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. The fact that the article was included with three other articles might have harmed it, and I think there is quite a chance that it survives a 2nd AfD, especially since the result was rather close. By the way, I could find no entry for "Andrews, S. (2005). Wessex Hall. Reading, University Press." in either Copac or the catalogue of the library of Reading University (that might be because the book is very new). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

November 29, 2005

Project Mohole

This was speedy deleted without review of the page's history. Project Mohole was a 1950s-1960s project to drill into the Mohorovičić discontinuity; according to the deleted edits, the page itself was vandalised into patent nonsense (for which it was speedied) on November 28, last good version on November 23. This one should be pretty easy. If all is well and simple, I'm requesting a full undeletion, so I can revert the article to its previous state. If there is some other version of this project under a different name (couldn't find one), I'm requesting a history undeletion to merge. Here are some google hits: [37] -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• This was clearly an accidental RC patrol deletion. I've restored it and reverted to the last vandalism-free version. -Splash^talk 01:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised

Could the circumstance of the deletion of the carefully and multiple source documented Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised “piece” be brought up for discussion? A few reviewers have been constantly deleting this contribution, then alleging that when the article is replaced by another that there have been multiple postings. It does not appear that these reviewers are sufficiently knowledgeable and thus objective about the subject. However, one could readily infer, because of these reviewers allegations of lack of a neutral point of view (a matter of some difficulty given the political circumstances of that island) that the sub rosa or even subconscious intent of these reviewer is essentially political. El Jigüe 11/29/05

• [38], second half. Since then, you added references, I'll admit that. It's plainly a POV screed, however, just as it was before, right down to the words, and is now under its fourth or fifth different title, not counting talk: pages. I endorse all the deletions. If restored, take directly to AfD. -Splash^talk 14:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the matter of POV is in the eye of the beholder. This article is on espionage and other intelligence matters thus by necessity reflects the overt views of the sources used and the clandestine nature of the actions involved. However, the article uses both Castro government and exile sources, as well as numerous other contributions. As to the matter of revisions, the article was and is in constant update. El Jigüe 11/29/05

In addition, this article covers almost 500 years of Cuban history El Jigüe 11/29/05

• Keep deleted. Original AfD for the original article here. --Deathphoenix 15:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Death have you read the latest much improved and expanded version? Or are you basing your decision on first draft El Jigüey 11/30/05

• No, I was basing it on what I could see as a regular user, not an admin. I'll take a look at the now-undeleted article at my convenience and vote on AfD. (not undeleted, not sure what I'm smoking) --Deathphoenix 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's sourced now, although the POV issue still remains. Since it doesn't qualify as a G4 speedy anymore, relist to have more eyes go over it and perhaps fix it. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete -- sourcing the article is a major change, if POV/verifiability is the major claim against the article. Since there appears to be agreement that this has taken place, undelete. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. At present I am trying to untangle the dramatic assassination of Mella in light of considerable additional information most especially:

Ross, Marjorie 2004 El secreto encanto de la KGB: las cinco vidas de Iósif Griguliévich editorial Farben/Norma, Costa Rica

this is causing some delay in presenting a more complete version. However, if I can get a few more positive votes I will re-post with a "challenged" caveat El Jigüe 12-1-05

The revision of the Mella assassination has been done. Tito (yes your namesake is mentioned) thanks El Jigüe 12-2-05

• Keep deleted. This was deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion as a re-creation of a previously deleted article; this same article has been re-created under at least five different titles and other articles have also had duplicates created, often with unsuitable titles (eg, Enrique Ros was duplicated as the now-deleted ISBN 1593880472), possibly as an attempt to spam search engines. See discussion at Talk:Cuban_espionage_and_related_extraterritorial_activity_revised#Deletion_of_this_article. Note in particular that this user does not accept basic Wikipedia principles such as WP:NPOV, and also does not even accept the GFDL, under which all contributions to Wikipedia (including his own) are released. The latter is especially significant: if he doesn't accept the GFDL he should not contribute anything at all. He writes magazine articles and polemical essays (or term papers), not encyclopedia entries. Attempts to explain the basics of how Wikipedia operates (WP:NOT, Wikipedia:No original research, etc) are met with rambling persecution fantasies. For what it's worth, he also edits talk pages by inserting his own comments (without attribution) in the middle of other people's comments, and edits other people's comments by adding "(sic)" after their typos. Note also that a previous deletion review failed: see [39].-- Curps 01:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Further comment. He is also "internally spamming" this article by linking to it from a dozen other articles (even unrelated articles such as American Civil War spies !). These links are accomplished in a clumsy way: for instance, this is one of his sentences:

Castro alleges that defense is the only reason he has implemented aggressive Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised from the 1960s to the present day.

He is also still creating duplicate articles: see Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact and Culture clash pathologies, and spamming them with internal links from other Wikipedia articles. -- Curps 02:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

comment: perhaps the article is to broad for some people (because it seems to include a sub-category within its title). (Paradoxilly that makes the article more specific, right?) Anyway, sugestion: Perhaps the original author would be best to have a more general term such as cuban espionage. This could be part of the Espionage#Spies in various conflicts article. The extrateritorial activities could be mentioned within the cuban espionage article, giving it some substance. (perhaps a link to the cuban crisis would be interesting?) --Pat 14:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Image:Weiqi-Blca.PNG No undeletion possible 06:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. The Ubie: speedy endorsed. 05:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Merrr: speedy endorsed. 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
4. George Alexander (US Army soldier): no consensus close endorsed; AfD doesn't determing merge-v-keep. 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Packages in Java delete closure endorsed, with soft redirect to wikibooks. 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
6. AutoExtra.com undeleted and redirected to AutoExtra closed 18:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
7. List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society: no consensus close endorsed. 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401: original deletion endorsed. 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Judeofascism: deletion endorsed. 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Space Station 13: deletion endorsed. 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Nixon: Ruin and Recovery 1973-1990: undeleted and AFD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nixon: Ruin and Recovery 1973-1990. 19:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Gallery of Socialist Realism: endorsed as deletion. 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
13. MYOB: already rewritten as dab. 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Argentina v England (2005): overturned, undeleted, and turned into a redirect to merge target. 19:02, 3 December 2005
15. Trollaxor relisted (below threshold to overturn directly, but significant majority to do so) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollaxor (2nd nomination). 19:07, 3 December 2005
16. Joseph Vargo and Nox Arcana: left alone, nominator withdrew. 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
17. United Bimmer: endorsed delete close. 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Contingent work: undeleted, not relisted. 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
19. CrystalCherry: endorsed and kept deleted. 18:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Brian Peppers: endorsed and kept deleted. 18:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Fúsíjama Basketball Club International: restored and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fúsíjama Basketball Club International (2nd nomination). 18:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Category:Soviet spies: no action (close endorsed, with concerns). 18:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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.

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. 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 import feature is completed.

List of gags in the Naked Gun series

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gags in the Naked Gun series

I'm not asking for an undeletion as such, but for the content to be copied over to the three movie articles, under a trivia section perhaps. Many movie articles on wikipedia have trivia sections which cover this sort of thing. Astrokey44 11:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've moved this request to the content review section, where I think it belongs. --- Charles Stewart 15:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't like this kind of request very much, and yes, I know what the blurb just up there says. The fact is that this material has been rejected by AfD, and this feels like working it back in through th back door. -Splash^talk 15:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The material was rejected by AfD, but it was not rejected by the editors/readers of the individual movie articles (who might be able to present compelling justification for its inclusion in a different form). Editors/readers of the list were invited to participate in the AfD discussion (via the notice that appeared on the page), but editors/readers of the individual movie articles were not. Therefore, the decision to exclude this content should be applied to the former, but not to the latter. —Lifeisunfair 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Splash. Re-posting deleted material under a different heading is bad. If there was a consensus to do so people would have voted to merge/redirect. Do not undelete and paste. -R. fiend 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• If this material was introduced under a trvia section in the movie articles, noone would think about deleting it. Its just because it has a separate article. At least copy the relevant sections to the talk pages of the movie articles so it can go through the normal process of reverts/additions etc. to determine what should be included Astrokey44 22:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see any harm in userfying the contents over to Astrokey44's user page temporarily, so he can pick portions of it to use in other articles, as found suitable. There was no copyright violation or offensive material in the deleted article. As admins, Splash, R. fiend and I have access to that text. I don't see any justification for denying Astrokey44 the opportunity to view a copy of it for his reference. The decision which parts are suitable as trivia for the movie articles is a separate issue, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, if he/she does choose to use any parts of it in another article, you have just made it much more complicated to meet our obligations under GFDL to preserve attribution history. What's done is done but in the future I would prefer that we wait until the discussion is complete before making such moves. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The attribution requirement can be met quite simply: one just links to the userfied page in the edit summary, citing it is a source. No need for fancy admin interventions, even if they result in a nicer reading edit history. --- Charles Stewart 23:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't done anything yet. What I am proposing is that I undelete the page, move it to User:Astrokey44/List of gags in the Naked Gun series, and re-delete the resulting redirect in List of gags in the Naked Gun series. The resulting userfied page would have the full history per GFDL, but List of gags in the Naked Gun series would stay deleted as per the AfD. Eventually the userfied page would also be deleted, but any admin would be able to trace the full history. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • That would not likely be a viably transparent route to the history per the GFDL, which does not elevate Wiki admins above everyone else... You'd have to leave the userfied article undeleted. -Splash^talk 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I see no harm in simply undeleting the history of List of gags in the Naked Gun series, and leaving the page protected as a redirect to The Naked Gun. Let's not get bogged down in bureaucracy. —Lifeisunfair 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Wouldn't it be easier to just post each of the 3 sections on the talk pages of movies 1, 2 and 3? or even easier post them all on the talk page of the first one Astrokey44 03:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • To answer Charles above, no, moving the text to a userpage and then linking to the userfied page would not be sufficient. Contribution history must be traceable back to the original contributor, not merely to Astrokey44. The full version would have to remain (as OwenX proposed) but as Splash points out, could not ever be deleted. That would defeat the intent of the AFD decision. To answer Astrokey44, yes, we could post the sections but you'd also have to cut-and-paste the contribution history. Again, that would seem to defeat the intent of the AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
            • While I understand the principle issues raised here, it seems we are making much too big a deal out of this. We've all seen larger works than this 20-line list get a cut-and-paste treatment into BJAODN, without any retention of history visible to non-admins. It wouldn't bother me, and it shouldn't offend any of the voters on the AfD if this article does end up living as a user subpage, if that's what full-transparency GFDL calls for. Fulfilling Astrokey44's request shouldn't be such a big deal. Owen× ☎ 04:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Wait a minute, I didnt want it to 'live' as my subpage. Its supposed to go into the articles, not be a user subpage Astrokey44|talk 04:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Okay, then to address your If this material was introduced under a trvia section in the movie articles, noone would think about deleting it, I say, yes, I, for one, would delete it in a heartbeat. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • True Astrokey, you didn't ask for userfying, but the edit history of the article needs to be retained per the GFDL. Userfication was given as a suggestion for a place to point to in order comply with the GFDL and give the originators their credit. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is an excellent idea. The article should not have been deleted in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

History only undeletion

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.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 October 12}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 12}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 12|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

December 9, 2005

Treigloffobia

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Treigloffobia. Per User:Splash's closing comments, "I've little choice since the sources cited certainly don't include the word with either spelling (and English sources are better on the English Wikipedia). I hope this is not systemic bias, but, if it is, then either Deletion Review will fix it, or a comprehensive rewrite with good, reliable sources will do.", he seemed to suggest that this should be undeleted, and I agree with him. Whilst I voted delete (actually BJAODN), latter additions to the AFD vote suggested that the page may have had content of worth later on (I didn't look at the article later so don't know). I was just checking through the AFD's and this one stuck out like a sore thumb. Also note that there were only 3 votes: 1 keep and 2 deletes. Surely not enough for a consensus. I'd like it to be relisted to form consensus. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment two things:

1. If I had been an admin and closed this vote, I'd have counted the two anonymous contributors (if they were indeed different) as a single keep vote, since their comments were substantive and evidence-based, which would have resulkted in no consensus. Splash did a pretty good job closing this, though, given that the AfD didn't get to grips with the issues in a satisfactory way.
2. I'd like to see this article, and I've posted an active cy.wikipedia editor [40]: can we temporarily undelete this article, please? --- Charles Stewart 15:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (copyedit Charles Stewart 15:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Danish Pedophile Association

Got speedied and protected while the user was still creating it (so there wasn't even anything there except the first link). Ouch!

It's a pretty distasteful subject, for sure, that's probably why it got deleted, but it's even in the new jersey news, so it's certainly notable, as far as I can tell. Kim Bruning 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unprotect, notable, at least let the guy finish typing before you delete, sheesh. Talk about on the ball! ;-) Kim Bruning 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete. The content was not the same as the original speedy, so I don't see that a good reason was given for deletion. I tried to undelete it but apparently I screwed something up, it didn't work the way I wanted it to. Friday (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  I believe I got it back the way I wanted it now, after several tries. Apologies for getting in a delete/undelete war with myself- I'll leave a note on my talk page warning me not to do it again. Friday (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• You have got to be kidding. This isn't much more than link spamming. Doesn't that user have anything better to do? - Lucky 6.9 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Lucky, don't wheel-war eh? Let the guy actually add some content. Go and secure a promise from him first if you don't trust me. :-) Kim Bruning 01:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Kim, I trust you implicitly. All right, let's let it ride. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 01:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks dude. I've also nudged Gbleem to actually go forth and edit, so let's see if he keeps his promise. :-) Kim Bruning 01:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks guys. Friday (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is the usual "file under don't speedy within the first ten minutes of an article's existence if it's not obvious vandalism," followed by "deletion regards content, not topic." Phil Sandifer 01:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh...no. It wasn't. The original speedies were pure, Grade-A link spam. And I wasn't the first to delete it, either. I've defended some really distasteful articles. This one, frankly, stinks. On ice. However, let's see what becomes of this. - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Moshzilla

Moshzilla is an internet phenonenom, I think that it belongs in wikipedia. please undelete it.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moshzilla. I counted 6 votes to merge or keep and 9 to delete. One of the merge votes (Rtconner's) actually bolded "delete", but merge and delete are not compatible, so it either it should count as a merge as per his his reasoning (see vote below).

Delete Merge into Internet phenomenon, does not deserve a full article, has had a small impact on a relatively small amount of people. [[User:Rtconner]Rtconner]]

• Undelete and relist, I can see people willing to merge and to delete, but neither has a concensus. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). It would have been nice if the closing admin had articulated his/her reasoning a bit more clearly. We are left now to reverse-engineer the decision. I count 9 unambiguous "delete" opinions, 3 "straight keeps", 2 "merge and redirect" and 2 "merge and delete". Rtconner (one of the two "merge and deletes") is a very new user who was actually editing as an anon. While the closing admin has the right to discount that vote, he/she is not obligated to do so. The other "merge and delete" was the nominator. Based on the comments made in each case, I think it was within allowable discretion to count those as "deletes" rather than as "keep as merge". I can see a reasonable interpretation of this decision as 11 "delete" to 5 "keep". Furthermore, I see an unambiguous 13 to 3 decision against keeping it as an independent article. If that was the logic actually used by the closing admin, I think it was within the allowable range of interpretation. Rossami (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Right to exist

A very important concept that is central to Israeli/Palestinian negotiations. The article that I wrote was speedy deleted, with no review, because a different article with that same title had apparently been deleted before. I was under the impression that AFD votes were for a specific article, not a blanket prohibition on anything ever being created under that title again. Obviously, there are potential issues with an article like this being subject to an edit war or insertion of personal opinion, but that's what vandalism patrol is for. At the very least, the new article should get its day in AFD before being summarily deleted. Crotalus horridus 20:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like Jayjg deleted it under CSD G4, which only applies if the material is A substantially identical copy. If it is not, undelete --- Charles Stewart 20:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is slightly difficult, and I'm not going to reach a conclusion straight off. From reading the old and the new articles, they are substantially identical (which is what WP:CSD#G4 requires) insofar as the new article was a strict subset of the old, longer article on the same material. AfD has rejected the same material before. Note that even though the old article included arguments both "for" and "against" as the new did (and its ext link [41] does), it was soundly rejected on POV OR grounds. The speedy was valid, imo. There was no sourcing in the original article, but there are only 2 sources in the new one (a Guardian article and mag article, which seems a little below the necessary level for this kind of topic). However, that debate was a long time ago, and we should sometimes revisit things. That seems rather to fail in this case, however, since one presumes that nothing about the situation has substantially changed since mid-May. I'm not sure what to do, or what to recommend. -Splash^talk 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist, or make the content temporarily to establish that it is effectively the same as the old version. But generally, if content is deleted for being POV/OR, the addition of sources is a change that would almost always be described as substantial. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Simply adding an external link or two doesn't automatically mean your article earns undeletion when AfD has soundly removed it (when the material was far more comprehensive) in the past. -Splash^talk 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, that depends entirely on the article and the nature of the links, doesn't it. And having no idea what those are, better safe than sorry. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Another interesting case for review. The deleted version of this article (3 May 2005) was 968 words. The AFD decision was an overwhelming "delete" decision. The speedy-deleted version (30 Nov 2005) was a mere 212 words. A side-by-side review of the texts gives every indication of having been independently written. Several external links were included which were not part of the 3 May version. As Charles Stewart says above, the speedy-deletion criterion only applies if the content was a "substantially identical copy". Even with such an overwhelming prior decision, I think this was sufficiently different that the speedy criterion should not have been applied. The primary arguments for deletion made during the original discussion were that there was an inherent bias in the topic and that the article constituted original research. The links provided in the 30 Nov version do use the phrase "right to exist" but my own cursory review does not suggest that it is the widely-known "political shorthand" alleged in the article. Overturn the speedy-deletion and immediately list for regular AFD. The AFD should explicitly reference the prior discussion since many of the problems cited with the earlier version still appear to apply to the latest version. In particular, it has not yet been established to my satisfaction that this version is not also original research. Rossami (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

List of non-fictional heroes

(Yes, it's yet another list. Let the eye-rolling commence. :)

Full disclosure: I voted "keep" on this, and created the page as a split from a larger list of heroes.
The AfD votes for this page don't seem to warrant a "rough consensus". The vote was 7/5 in favor of delete, 6/5 if the anonymous IP with an unusually high number of AfD votes is discounted. I think this should have been a "no-consensus" as with similar AfDs. Turnstep 14:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, on raw count I see 7d-5k, discounting the anon. However, the title of the list is inherently POV and that's pretty obvious. Why is Bill Clinton a hero? Why isn't my dad? It could probably be renamed as List of people referred to as heros, as was suggested in the debate. Now, Enochlau should have given a detailed reason for their decision here. However, I'm inclined to think that the poor arguments given for keeping it ("coz I like it", "you didn't nominate every other list for deletion") really don't match up to the POV (and unmentioned but important WP:V) problems. At least one keeper reasons themselves properly, but hobbles their argument by insisting we all know what a hero is: an entirely objectionable basis on which to construct a list such as this, and a point-of-view that was comprehensively challenged. Putting "List" at the front of your page title does not give you carte-blanche to flout core policies or demand that you be given leniency compared to non-lists, just because we have so many other lists. A poorly executed close, but a valid one nonetheless. Keep deleted. -Splash^talk 14:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Including the anonymous delete vote we actually have eight deletes (perhaps you overlooked Colin Kimbrell). I probably would have closed this thing as a "no consensus" if I had done so, and calling it a "delete" should definitely have had a bit of explanation behind it. I am quite sure that I would not have voted to keep it however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted). While the raw count numbers indicate no consensus, I agree with Splash that the arguments that the list is inherently POV is the determining factor. As mentioned in the AfD, there is no objective means to decide if real world figures such as Yasser Arafat, Josef Stalin, or Benedict Arnold were heroes or villains. --Allen3 ^talk 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This is why AfD is a discussion and not a vote-count. A thousand good-faith keep votes from good editors would not prevent this article from being inherently POV listcruft. android79 15:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In a way, but if we have 10 good faith "delete" votes vs. 50 good faith but misguided "keep" votes it would be difficult to call that a "consensus to delete", which is the real requirement. Discretion is usable in close cases, but it doesn't grant absolute freedom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A dozen editors voting "keep it because I like it" is not an attempt at forming consensus and completely ignores WP:NPOV. android79 15:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse (keep deleted) per talk. I'm willing to be kind to things like articles on borderline-notable things, but in the case of an article with obvious neutrality and verifiability problems I just can't bring myself to overrule a close on the basis of technicalities. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse/keep deleted, per most of the above. It takes human judgement to close an Afd, since it's not a simple vote. A thousand people screaming "keep" cannot overrule core editorial policies like WP:V and WP:NOR. Friday (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted unsalvagably POV. Without going into a big cultural rant, the word "hero" is one of the most overused and misunderstood in the English language. Everybody who manages even a modicum of success at any endeavour, career, occupation, sport, etc is more than likely to be called a hero at some point. Hercules spins in his mythological grave every time a sentence appears in the newspaper like "District comptroller Anderson, who approved the funding to have the parking lot repaved outside Sewage Processing Facility #14, is truly a hero of the community". Hero in the modern sense means virtually anybody who does or tries to do something that might be seen as good by pretty much anyone else. If defined broadly enough, just about everyone is a hero. Such a nebulous concept is not a reasonable subject for a list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The key to a successful list is a clear criterion for inclusion that can effectively be policed in keeping with WP:V. As per Starblind, that is not the case here. Closing admins should take care with their summing up in cases like that are likely to be challenged: Turnstep did nothing wrong by raising this here. --- Charles Stewart 16:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I generally don't support overruling the apparent votes because something is "inherently POV", but the point here is that the keep arguments were clearly not well reasoned. Nobody argued that it wasn't POV, they argued it should be kept anyway. Thus I make the "vote" count 6-0. -- SCZenz 16:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• An observation in addition to my comment above: the only entry in the external links in the first version of the article says "The interpretation is entirely personal. It always is.". How right they are. -Splash^talk 17:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for the reason already expressed. I cannot agree with the absolute veto power Android appears to give to one admin's interpretation of NPOV, but policy concerns do add some extra support to the delete cause in this instance. Xoloz 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

On a related issue, why are we doing salt-the-earth "do not recreate this page" notes for a page with only one recreation? Phil Sandifer 16:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably because it's a new admin. I just made a comment vaguely to that effect on his talk page. —Cryptic (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science

This article is related to the discussion immediately below. Michael added it to the discussion header of that discussion but I'm breaking it out as a separate discussion because I think the fact-base for this article is significantly different from the facts (and the possible conclusion) of the list below.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 Nov 05. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science. During the discussion, the copyright holder came forward and requested deletion. One user did offer an opinion that the list is inherently uncopyrightable. That point was disputed in the AFD discussion. The discussion was closed as a no-consensus decision on 28 Nov 05.

Unfortunately, I believe that the copyright of the original list was enforceable because the list was not a mere collection of publicly available information. The list of Recipients of the National Medal of Science was filtered for ethnicity by the copyright holder, cross-referenced with other information, etc. (See the AFD discussion for the rest of his claims.)

We have always held that correction of copyright violations supersede AFD's discretionary decisions. I deleted the article in accordance with my understanding of Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Jinfo list that it supposedly is copied from? All it has is names and date of award, with some footnotes about Jewishness. Name and date of award is purely factual information, not copyrightable under Feist v. Rural (it's facts, not public availability, that matters here, and ethnicity too is factual). The list here was arranged differently, alphabetical rather than chronological, and has been ever since the first version of the list, so it's not a copy of Jinfo's arrangement of the names. The text of the list also adds considerable useful information that apparently is not copied.

For good reason, articles for deletion is not the place to deal with copyright problems. So it's not surprising that nobody was in position to make the right counterarguments. --Michael Snow 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Three questions:
  1. Are the other lists that User:Jinfo says are copyvios going to end up here? If so, we should probably treat them all at once.
  2. Is it clear that these lists are derived from the Jinfo pages? As a speculative exercise, I can imagine that User:84.228.75.134 saw the lists at jinfo.org, thought it would be a good idea if WP were to have similar lists, and painstakingly put together the lists without further consulting the jinfo.org lists.
  3. As a matter of interest, what is the policy for challenging copyvio deletions? Is contacting Wikipedia:Designated agent the only channel?--- Charles Stewart 18:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish scientists and philosophers

Longstanding article tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was a blatant copyright infringement created within the previous 48 hours (criterion A8, I believe that is). Then, the person who actually performed the deletion didn't even mention this bogus justification as the reason for deletion, just commented on it being a stupid list. It may be that, perhaps, but that's not grounds for speedy deletion. --Michael Snow 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I may have some of the history wrong since there appear to have been some name-changes to the article. But based on what I can see, the version which existed on 24 Nov 05 was credibly accused of being a copyvio. Evidence was presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science with a specific request for deletion of that article from the copyright holder. The only counter-claim made about the "Recipients of NMS" article was that the list was non-copyrightable merely because it was a list. That interpretation is, in my opinion, legally unsupportable not just in Australia (as was said in the AFD discussion) but in all major jurisdictions. Lists are copyrightable. The AFD discussion was closed on 28 Nov 05 as "no concensus". I consider that decision to have been in error but I think it was probably an honest mistake given the history of the article during the discussion. That discussion should have been closed early as a "confirmed copyvio" governed not by the WP:CSD or even the AFD process but by the WP:CV process (and more specifically, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation).

Having, I think, resolved the "Recipients of NMS" article, we can turn to the allegation by user:StabRule that this list is derivative of the copyvio list. Clearly, the article was mistagged. The speedy-copyvio notice did not apply. However, the regular copyvio notice may have applied. While the first version was sorted differently and wikified, there were many points of similarity with the copyvio text. There were also some points of difference. It is possible that the lists were developed independently but certainly there was cause to question the text. The fact that the deleting admin didn't specifically cite the copyvio in the reason for deletion but instead called it a "stupid list" might be cause for a comment on his/her Talk page about WP:CIVILITY but does not invalidate the deletion if he/she were convinced that this was a confirmed copyvio. Given the confusion, I could support a decision to undelete and immediately investigate as a regular copyright violation. However, I also note that the versions created since 25 Nov 05 are not recreations of the deleted content and are a safe start to re-building the article. At this point, it might be best to leave it alone. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a derivative of the National Medal of Science list, if you look at the history that one is quite recent and this one significantly predates it. The regular process for copyright problems would be fine; my contention is that we're dealing with factual information and Feist v. Rural applies. --Michael Snow 07:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please note: Michael's comments below were added during an edit conflict as I was correcting and extensively revising my inital findings. Apologies for the confusion. Rossami
  • Pardon me, are you saying this page was discussed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or merely that it is "governed" by the process there? If it was discussed there, could you please point it out to me? Otherwise, it needs to go through that process. This is not a confirmed copyright infringement, that claim is disputed. At least one administrator disagreed with the speedy tag and removed it before the deletion was performed by someone else. This is not a simple cut-and-paste scenario of identical lists, if there was any copying it may well involve only factual information (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). It looks to me like an out-of-process speedy deletion that didn't get the necessary deliberation. --Michael Snow 06:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I do mean that the "Recipients of NMS" article's decision was "governed by" the copyvio rules. I do not know of any discussion on Wikipedia:Copyright problems but a different set of steps are followed if we receive a request for deletion directly from the copyright holder. Listing for 10 days is not required (or even, I believe, allowed) in that case. The copyvio of the "Recipients" article was not disputed. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So now I'll have to add the second article to my request, since you've just speedy deleted it after the debate was closed as "no consensus". --Michael Snow 06:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Update: The person claiming to hold the copyright to the deleted version of this page did point us to the eleven sub-pages of http://www.jinfo.org/. I'd overlooked them before. They do appear to substantiate his claim that the Wikipedia list was a compilation of copies of his lists. Rossami (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

SHOCKINIS

Speedy deleted presumably. I don't see why wikipedia users shouldn't be able to look these up. Content was: SHOCKINIS are 3&1/4 inch customizable pre-assembled mini block action figures.Shockinis can be customized with stickers as well as paint and clay... Kappa 05:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete unless the rest of the content makes clear a reason for speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD Google appears to confirm the existence of these, and the grounds for speedy are not obvious. Send it to AfD for a full discussion. Xoloz 07:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undeleted - at a correct article title, Shockini. FCYTravis 07:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• There already was an afd, for a fuller article including everything in the current iteration, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shockini. Nothing appears wrong with that afd. The current version should be deleted in accordance with it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (or, more precisely, should have been kept deleted). Shockini and SHOCKINI are both substantial recreations of content already deleted in an AfD, per Cryptic. And why the assumption that the deletion was out-of-process, just because you couldn't immediately find evidence? -- SCZenz 11:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Very likely, the assumption was made because it was thought the deleting admin would be thorough enough to mention the AfD in the log. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Xoloz 18:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redeleted. This could have been avoided with a deletion summary pointing to the previous AFD. I think the undeletion was made with the best intentions however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  I concur completely, and I think I should make clear that my remark above wasn't intended to imply otherwise. That being said, Deletion Review should be allowed some time for discussion before an undeletion or other change is made, unless the situation is very clear-cut. -- SCZenz 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per AFD - Tεxτurε 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Not that it would have necessarily caused the closer in the original AfD to draw a different conclusion, but he miscounted the votes. There were three non-discounted keep votes, not just two: User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Kzollman and User:Cnwb. -- DS1953 19:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid AfD. Undeletion because you don't like the way the deleting admin worded his reasoning is solely WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. The admin who initially speedied SHOCKINIS didn't reference the afd discussion, and there's no reason to think the undeleting admin noticed it. I'm not in the habit of checking for past afds at titles I'm moving articles to, either. —Cryptic (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per Zoe Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Texture and AFD. Nandesuka 08:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and Redirect to action figures. --Pat 13:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

December 8, 2005

Southern Ivies

This was last discussed on AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivies, with the result a no-consensus keep. However, it was earlier discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League with the result being recorded as a delete. After this delete it was undeleted or recreated (I'm not quite sure which) and moved to the name "Southern Ivies". Then on 2 December 2005 User:Enochlau deleted this with the note "See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League - slipped through net" and the redirect at Southern Ivy League was later speedied as a redir to a nonexistent page. The deletion was done in spite of comments on the talk page referencing the second AfD discussion. I have undeleted both the article and the redir. I am bringing this here for comment on this action, and to document that this has been undeleted in process, in hopes of avoiding any future misunderstandings about this article. I have no strong feelings about the article itself, and I'm not sure how I would vote if it were re-nominated on AfD. DES ^(talk) 18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Southern Ivies has been here before, and it was resubmitted for a second AfD, which did not reach consensus. Your action was perfectly in keeping with the second AfD, and (of course) the later AfD governs the article's fate. So, Endorse DES. Xoloz 18:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The article was moved during AfD by Snowspinner with the edit comment "(Southern Ivy League moved to Southern Ivies: Better mirrors Public Ivies)" which also makes sense since there has never been any Southern Ivy League. The present article is very different from the article at the time it was moved, and the votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Ivy League refer to it in that form, which probably explains the difference in the votes.

• • FWIW, I tend to keep a mental log of irregularities caused by the "pro-IAR" admins at DVR. Although I recall that Snowspinner did jump the gun a bit, his move was validated in process by subsequent discussions. I don't consider any process violation here substantial. Xoloz 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with DES that the AFDs have been irregularly handled. Please relist with a full explanation of the deletion history of this concept so viewers can decide with context. --DDG 19:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• The undeletion was entirely sensible, the deletion presumably a mistake, the report here a simple courtesy. It can be speedily unlisted as far as I'm concerned. There is no need to re-AfD it, and no case for a reverse-AfD on Deletion Review. -Splash^talk 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like a case of Enochlau mistaking the article for something CSD G4-able, but if he deleted Southern I vies, why is Special:Undelete/Southern Ivies blank? What page was deleted, when and what reason was given? --- Charles Stewart 20:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Special:Undelete is empty if there are no revisions to undelete (confusingly — it's not the same thing as the deletion log). You need to look here instead. -Splash^talk 20:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I see that the two special pages give different results, but I can't figure out why Special:Undelete is empty: you can't delete an empty page, so why don't the deleted edits show? --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Got it: only edits that are still deleted are shown on Special:Undelete. Bit slow today. --- Charles Stewart 21:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It is also unfortunate that there is no way for someone who undeletes to enter a reason in the log, or if there is a way i don't know how to do that. DES ^(talk) 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a case where I think that editing old AfD discussions is a good thing, to note the existence of new discussions. --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks to DES for doing just this. --- Charles Stewart 23:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• To be clear, I brought this here largely as a courtesy, adn to clearly document what I had done. I think that the deletion was a simple mistake, that User:Enochlau found the first AfD discussion and believed that the deletion had somehow never been carried out. It is unusual to have two separate Afd discussins on the same article within 2 weeks of each other, and still more unusual when the two discussins are about the same article but under different names, with different results. But that is what happened in this case. As to whether this is a worthy article or not, i take no stand, and this is not really the place to discuss it. i merely wanted to notify the community of my action in undeleting, and give people a chance to indicate if the thought this action was in any way improper, and to document these actions for the future. If anyone now (or in the future) thinks this article should be removed from wikipedia, it can be re-nominated for AfD in the usual way, although links to the past debates would be a good idea IMO if this is done. DES ^(talk) 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It probably was. I think (if my memory serves) I was roaming Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and this page was tagged as speedy for having slipped through net, with a link to the AfD page which said "delete", so it seemed like a pretty clear case to delete. I don't recall seeing a link to the other AfD discussion that said "keep", but since that has come to light, of course, the deletion must have been a mistake then. I apologise for any inconvenience. Enochlau 22:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, there's nothing here to argue about. I shouldn't have fussed about renominating it for AfD. I've trimmed my way-too-long comments above. Everyone acted reasonably. Maybe we can have a big group hug and just forget it? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• (hug) Enochlau 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

December 7, 2005

Joaquin Ma. Gutierrez

Was deleted on August 13, 2005 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joaquin Ma. Gutierrez), 3-1 in favour of deletion. I think it was deleted mainly due to being unsourced, and people consequently being unsure whether this was for real or just vanity. However, methinks this young chap would be worth a minor encyclopedia entry... See also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#filipino_violinst and Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/July_2005#Who_is_the_Violinist. Of course, if undeleted, the article should be moved to the full name, and "Chino Gutierrez", "Joaquin Gutierrez", and "Joaquin Maria Gutierrez" created as redirects. Lupo 09:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and AfD. Since the article was listed at AfD a number of articles have appeared promoting Gutierrez in the Philipine press. [42] [43] [44] While this may or may not be enough to meet the guidelines at WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, it is at least enough to give the article another chance. --Allen3 ^talk 17:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Undelete and relist per Allen3. No harm in a re-evaluation where there is clear evidence of changed circumstance. Xoloz 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and AfD per Allen3. We always say "if new information comes to light..." and it appears to have done so here. -Splash^talk 17:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD seems like enough new information (from a decent source too) to give it another run. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist, a significant change that would have affected the outcome of the AfD has occurred, so give it another try. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, and I don't see the sense in relisting. This article about a prodigy should obviously not have been deleted in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Remember, it only takes one good-faith nominator to initiate the deletion process. As such, I rarely see any sense in not relisting, almost as a courtesy, to provide a more definitive resolution to any possible disputes. Xoloz 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It might interest you to know that the original AfD nominator, User:Jake013, went on an AfD spree some months back, nominating such articles as Jascha Heifetz and other notable violinists. I would hardly consider that a good-faith nominator. However, relisting might, as you say, give a more definitive solution to this problem. Don Diego[[User talk:Don Diego|^(Talk)]] 20:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

December 6, 2005

Mixed

This was deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed. I wanted it to be made a disambiguation page which I have now done to show that it can link to quite a lot of articles. Astrokey44 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Except that you haven't done that. Not a single one of the articles linked to is ambiguous, none of them being known simply as "Mixed". Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What_NOT_to_put_on_disambiguation_pages: Dictionary definitions don't belong here, nor do lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms a part of the article title. Uncle G 01:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK sorry I didn't realise that. but even if this not right for a disambiguation page it should still get a {{wi}} template Astrokey44 04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is not a valid or useful disambiguation page. The current content has nothing to do with the previous AfD, so it seems like the correct thing to do would be to relist it for deletion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 02:26:17Z
• I don't understand why this is here. This content has no relation to the previous content at all. -Splash^talk 02:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I already said that it should be made a disambig page in the vfd which was overruled. (although after Uncle G's comment I'm thinking it should probably now get a {{wi}} template instead) Astrokey44 04:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete again. Deleted articles show a links to both wiktionary and the commons and a search of the word in other articles. Putting a wiktionary template on it would limit the access to useful several links. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• This listing doesn't belong on deletion review. If someone wants to delete this new article, they could list it on AfD. Rhobite 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Supermarket skin and Exogenous xeroderma modo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarket skin

Despite two difficult discussions with firstly the original deletion proposer, and then the deleting administrator, only destructive actions have resulted. I am a little new here and would greatly appreciate some help. I did read a very good article awhile back about good conduct and etiquette and how and why confusion occurs, but now to no avail. I understand that the article(s) are difficult to name due to the descriptive name nature often associated with medical terms, thus affecting verifiability. And coupled with with complex nature of the article(s) it appears too much for those acting in haste.

The two discussions, for consideration can be found at; [[45]]

and [[46]] discussion ended(?) 2005/12/06/18:29

many thanks in advance for your time and minds Ifca 20:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have declined to reverse my deletion or relist of my own volition because the author has resolutely refused to provide anything by way of sources. They were asked for during the debate, and repeatedly by me on my talk page. Instead, s/he prefers to ask obtuse questions questioning the intelligence and integrity of the other editors. I see that even now, no sources are provided and no explanation of the utter absence of Google and PubMed presence is explained. The AfD found this unverifiable and WP:V mandates the outcome of the debate. I ended the discussion on my talk page since, without sources, the material does not repair the AfD problems and violates a core Wikipedia policy. -Splash^talk 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Splash, I am not aiming to question intelligence or integrity of anyone, I did feel at the time that your lone decision may have been made in haste. I agree there are no sources that can be found using the exact syntax, but many thousands relating to the content of the article, namely,

    that human skin is affected by humidity, (and humidity is low in certain buildings) and over the relatively short evolutionary timescale not all human-types have adapted to resist high 'exposure' levels and this can lead to a condition/situation evidenced by sensation and visible skin change.

    medical conditions/situations are often named with a description of the particular observation, often in an alternative language, and herein lies a problem when a plethora of skin condition names develop to describe one. Now, not all skin conditions are affected by humidity, but many are, the article in question is an attempt to describe this situation that arises in temperate climates in the modern/developed world, where a great deal of the population encounters 'exposure'.

    I am now beginning to understand that the article many have been better started "An emerging situation..." [but I and others have no means of editing it at present]

    how can WP:V be a core value, part of a core maybe, but I read "no one tenet should be taken in isolation".

    WP:NOR, this is not original research, it is know about by all dermatologists and also any scientist applying his mind to it, and many architects/building planners, and heating engineers, and biologists.

    • it is know about by all dermatologists. Good. Then it should be simplicity itself to prove it. If it's so well-known to all dermatologists, then textbooks, medical journals, supermarket tabloids, self-help websites should be talking about. Yet despite numerous requests, you have been completely unwilling or unable cite references. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

      • see reply to Rossami started "There are two references pertinent..." Ifca 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    yes, I agree the article should be deleted, BUT NOT UNTIL it has been renamed or fitted in somewhere under a better title. Ifca 16:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - Properly closed, proponents of article appear not to understand what WP:NOR is about. --- Charles Stewart 22:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) but without prejudice against re-creation or undeletion if/when the author can cite his/her sources with verifiable reference(s) to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Rossami (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rossami, thank you for your comments, does my comment (above) suggesting starting the article "An emerging situation..." change your opinion ? Ifca 16:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are two references pertinent to the subject listed at the end of the article, I think more need to be added.Ifca 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, unfortunately calling it "An emerging ..." does not change my position. Others have said it better than I can but an encyclopedia is, by definition, a tertiary source. We do not create on conduct original research. We also do not publish the first report about original research. We synopsize and explain what has already been published and extensively discussed. We are not a newspaper or a research journal. We have no need to scoop anyone. We have the luxury and indeed the obligation to wait until the topic and contents are clearly verified before publication. The standard is obviously applied differently on pop-culture topics but for medical and scientific topics the established standard for a secondary source is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. So far, that standard does not appear to have been met. Your hypotheses and observations about adaptation are intellectually intriguing and I would be interested in reading the medical journal article when it's published. Unfortunately, that's not our purpose here. We choose to be an encyclopedia with all the limitations that entails.
      The two references you mention above were evaluated during the first AFD discussion. The conclusion of the community at that time was that those references did not by themselves establish confirmation of this malady. If you have other references, please cite them here so the community can evaluate them. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • the suggested word change was condition to situation, not emerging, emerging has always started the article.Ifca 01:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Rossami, Thankyou for explaining the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, I believe(believed?) that Wikipedia is something more, more akin to the original meaning Wiki, a collective "to hasten" understanding, but this may not be the philosophy of a marauding rabble. With reference to your comment about research/medical journal, I do not at present have such professional liberty. In addition I have no knowledge that I'd be scooping anyone. further citations were to be added to the article, however, I have been defending its existence since its inception, human nature to destroy what is not understood :(

but Thanks for your comments and time :) I can at present only provide more references of the same, but may well restart the article, or maybe try a Transepidermal water loss article first.Ifca 04:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, troll. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

see reply to Android79 Ifca 17:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Rossami. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment lfca seems to have changed the case for the defence: in the AfD the argument was principally that the research had not been done because of a supermarket-led conspiracy, now the argument is that the research has been done, but needs a neologism or two to be accessible to the wider public. For an article on this purported condition to be acceptable, it would need to connect to a credible literature on the topic and avoid neologisms. --- Charles Stewart 16:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Charles, why do you see it as a change of defence, not as an addition to it ?

    (is this really a trial ?, I may soon want representation and I would hate a miscarriage of justice without calling some expert witnesses, especially as the potential sentence is so harsh. Innocent till proved guilty, or Guilty until proved innocent, very black and white, but other colours exist so I'm led to believe)

    the word, I believe was conjecture not conspiracy, but conspiracy often arises from confusion.

    I agree the name is poor, so suggest a better one, BE BOLD. Ifca 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Unless you can find credible medical sources attesting to the existence of this illness, continued discussion is just time-wasting. --- Charles Stewart 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • repeated from above:"medical conditions/situations are often named with a description of the particular observation, often in an alternative language, and herein lies a problem when a plethora of skin condition names develop to describe one. Now, not all skin conditions are affected by humidity, but many are, the article in question is an attempt to describe this situation..." [Anyone reading this for the first time, has either not read or does not understand the two preceding discussions with USER:JFW and USER:Splash] Ifca 01:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Rossami. I smell a hoax. Xoloz 17:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Amalgamate or Rename, this may help dispel hoax or conspiracy concerns Ifca 19:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Amalgamate or Rename Ifca 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• References comment. It is claimed above that two references pertinent are in the article. Non-admins will have to trust me when I say that they are the following to PDFs: [47], [48]. Neither of these two documents include any of the words "supermarket", "exogenous", or "modo". "Xeroderma" appears once in the second, in a context entirely unrelated. Thus they don't get anywhere. I'm beginning to fear that I may be feeding at this point, to be honest. -Splash^talk 20:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • repeated from above:"medical conditions/situations are often named with a description of the particular observation, often in an alternative language, and herein lies a problem when a plethora of skin condition names develop to describe one. Now, not all skin conditions are affected by humidity, but many are, the article in question is an attempt to describe this situation..." [Anyone reading this for the first time, has either not read or does not understand the two preceding discussions with USER:JFW and USER:Splash] Ifca 01:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as per per Rossami. When and if proper sources, online or print, can be provided that indicate that such a condition exists and is known to medical science, a proper article can be created based on such references. If such a condition is known under some other name, than the article should be created under whatever its proper verifiable medical name is. If there is verifiable evidence of reasonably widespread non-medical usage of some name other than the formal medical one, then a redirect could be created or a mention of the common name included in the article. But so far no verifiable evidence for the existence of this condition seems to have been presented. At this point, such evidence must be cited for any article on this subject to be created, IMO. WP:V is the key policy in this case. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe(believed?) that Wikipedia is something more than an encyclopedia, something more akin to the original meaning Wiki, a collective "to hasten" understanding, but few here have been constructive. Ifca 04:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • According to WP:NOT and other policy pages your belief is incorrect -- wikipedia is precisely an encyclopedia, with all the limitations implied by that designation. It is different from many traditional encyclopedias because it is freed from the limitations of paper publishing, but it is not freed from being a tertiary source, which should contain only verified information that has been previously published in a reliable source, which source (or sources) should be cited in the relevant article. Not all wikipedia articles fully adhere to this standard, but all should. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • -an interesting point for discussion. Has Wikipedia always adhered to this philosophy ? surely knowledge evolves, maybe Wiki -pedia is becoming a misnomer, and proponents of each of its tenants are defending their own belief of what is right, an aspiration of their POV, (to which we all hope to be entitled). Ifca 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • If you want to talk about the purpose of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) are much better places than here. This process page is a really lousy place for this sort of thing. --- Charles Stewart 22:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree, sorry, Ifca 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse, keep deleted, whether the argument makes scientific sense or not is of no relevance; there are two content policies being violated, WP:NOR and WP:V. They could be tackled by providing verifiable sources. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • repeated from above:"medical conditions/situations are often named with a description of the particular observation, often in an alternative language, and herein lies a problem when a plethora of skin condition names develop to describe one. Now, not all skin conditions are affected by humidity, but many are, the article in question is an attempt to describe this situation..." [Anyone reading this for the first time, has either not read or does not understand the two preceding discussions with USER:JFW and USER:Splash] Ifca 01:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You completely ignored my point: I don't care if there is a technical name for the condition in the article or not, if a source is given that proves the content, whether it is with the medical term or without, I might reconsider my vote, but you have completely tried to skirt your way around it and not given any sources, which is a violation of No original research and Verifiability. And trying to say that I didn't read or don't understand what you had said before isn't going to get you anything. I'm changing my vote to strong keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • see reply to DES (re 'Wiki' pedia) and reply to Rossami (started "There are two references pertinent...") Ifca 14:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was properly conducted and closed, and no new information has been supplied. Turnstep 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe(believed?) that Wikipedia is something more than an encyclopedia, something more akin to the original meaning Wiki, a collective "to hasten" understanding, but few here have been constructive :( Ifca 05:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • EVERYONE has been constructive, telling you numerous times about the very simple thing you need to do to change their minds: PROVE THIS CONCEPT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF YOUR HEAD. No original research, no non-verifiability. Simple. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, with prejudice. The author's convoluted attempts to avoid the most basic requirement for an article here -- real-world verifiability -- convinces me that there isn't any there there. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted. I don't mind when a newbie genuinely doesn't understand verifiability and [[WP:|citing sources]], even though they're linked from every editing screen. I do mind when a contributor does not even try to provide sources when asked. And I mind it very much when a contributor challenges these policies. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • see reply to DES above, Ifca 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. No sources provided. Don't feed the troll. android79 14:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • so where is the emotive language ? and why this vote to hide the articles content ?

With content unhidden, a troll would languish in self-made isolation, arguing off and away from this important Deletion review page. Ifca 17:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

List of The Daily Show correspondent titles

This article had a history of more than 130 edits, but was deleted yesterday as the result of an AfD with only 3 delete votes, and that's counting the nominator, plus one merge vote by an anon. (As an aside, merging a long list back into an already rather long article as suggested would not have been feasible, so the only realistic outcomes are keep or delete.) I'm surprised that none of the regular contributors voted in the AfD, and 3 votes in favor of deletion, though unopposed, doesn't seem like a solid reason for deletion. It's a defensible reason – I'm not saying the closing admin wasn't acting in good faith – but I'd like to get a second opinion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The article received, among many non signed in editors, over 15 signed in editors, none of who participated in the AfD. It looks plausible that there was a case for the defence that failed to happen in the time window: certainly I've missed some AfDs on articles that I cared about. There is a google cache of the deleted page here. --- Charles Stewart 21:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as obviously correct. I have little opinion on rerunning debates where there are a number of editors, since enough eyes pass AfD that if there were serious support it would presumably have shown up. There is little importance to the number of edits in the history if there is something wrong with the article. If people insist on rerunning the debate, then ok, there weren't many people in the first one, but that's no reason to suppose there'll be any more in the second. -Splash^talk 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on AfD. I'd be interested in seeing this deletion re-run. I know that I might have voted to keep, but never saw it on AFD. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on AfD - We've got two people interested in participating in a new AfD, which could have been enough to avoid a delete outcome on the 1st AfD. --- Charles Stewart 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, what would you say in a subsequent deletion review following a second AfD debate with about the same participation (there being no reason to expect the original participants to come along)? I'm not challenging your choice here, just wondering if we are saying that we should go in circles indefinitely if necessary. -Splash^talk 22:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The new AfD should address the concerns of the prior AfD, and if it didn't, then that point should be raised either by the closing admin or in any new DRV. It would be exceedingly legalistic to have a third AfD, but if I thought that a third AfD would bring cogent new evidence that wasn't considered in the first two, then I'd vote for a new AfD. But I'd hope that the cycles were rapidly narrowing... --- Charles Stewart 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I saw this on AfD and passed it by, not having a firm opinion on whether it should stay or go. If I'd bothered to vote, I probably would have voted to merge, but I didn't, so my opinion at this stage is irrelevant. AfD's get closed on two or three votes all the time, as we have no minimum vote requirement. Until we have one, deletions such as this one should stand as a proper application of AfD policy. BDAbramson T 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall someone having analysed past AfDs and concluded that AfDs closing to delete with only two or three votes were a little bit uncommon: far more often is the case that AfDs attract two or three votes to delete and then are speedied. If anyone knows what I am talking about, I'd appreciate a pointer. --- Charles Stewart 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That'd be WP:AFD100. -Splash^talk 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks, that's it. --- Charles Stewart 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In that quite interesting analysis, close to 20% of AfDs end with 3 votes or fewer, and over 1/3rd with 4 votes or fewer. DES ^(talk) 21:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). From everything I can tell, the discussion was properly listed on AFD for the full period. As such, we can be reasonably sure that the discussion was seen by many people. We explicitly tell users not to vote on everything. If you look at the discussion and you agree with the evident consensus, you are encouraged to move on. The fact that users did not choose to dispute the emerging consensus to delete is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to presume that they supported the decision. Caveat: This nomination was made shortly before midnight. We have asked before if the new page-per-day format leads to nominations made late in the day being under-reviewed. As far as I know, no one has yet studied this question. If we do find that nominations made late in the day are not receiving equivalent visibility, we may have to reconsider our practices. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It does seem that the average number of votes declines as you scroll down the page. One obvious solution to this is to add new AfDs to the top of the page, similar to the way other pages do. Turnstep 23:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, further discussion on this question requested in good faith. This discussion is worth having. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Insufficient reason to override the closing admin's judgment. Nandesuka 03:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep deleted, valid AfD. There is absolutely no reason to reopen it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn - it seems plausible to me that the debate would go differently a second time. I'm, as always, disappointed by those who put process ahead of product - that the AfD was concluded by the rules does not mean it was concluded well or given an appropriate amount of attention. Phil Sandifer 08:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted. A valid AFD debate with no particularly good and convincing reasons given for overturning it. As for evaluating content here, I think that having huge lists like this is about as useful as a list of who presented the news on TV each and every day. We do not need details of who took part in each and every individual comedy show. The Daily Show is absolutely a very notable series which I enjoy watching occasionally (on CNN of all places), but an individual show is shown once, then forgotten. If people want info on that, they would not turn to Wikipedia, there are other websites on the web. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - It would improve the chances of having an undelete outcome if Mark Sweep and Tim Rhymeless were to outline why they think the list is encyclopediac. Notability (the first of the three reasons to delete stated in the AfD) isn't an issue here I think: encyclopedic information about a notable topic should always welcome at WP. I'd say that the argument should be that the kind of information gathered together in this list really supports the main article, rather than being fancruft. --- Charles Stewart 15:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, here goes (I only avoided mentioning this earlier because my understanding was that this is not the place to discuss matters of content). IIRC, this list was broken out of the main Daily Show article when it got too long. The Daily Show is notable for using over-the-top correspondent titles on a routine basis, mocking various trends in serious TV news coverage. Having a list with explicit dates and titles is helpful, because by following the date link one can see what real news event the correspondent title refers to. This is more informative than having just a list of correspondent titles in the main article. The fact that correspondent titles are discussed in the main article also underlines that the topic is inherently notable. I understand concerns about fancruft, but then again that's never a reason in and of itself for deleting anything. Regarding the procedure, I could easily see that the AfD could have been closed with an outcome of no consensus and default keep. If you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see that there were almost no edits by any of the regular contributors after the AfD notice was put up. I find it hard to believe that an article of substantial length, which had been in existence for 5 months and which had received 139 edits, would receive only three votes in total. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure per Splash, Sjakkalle. Had I seen this, I would have voted for deletion, as it's trivial and not useful enough to merge, imo. I see no rationale that compels a re-examination of a validly-closed debate. Xoloz 17:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm still undecided on this one, but I think it is based on the following simple question: is the existence of newly-expressed views, which are contrary to the consensus of those who took the time to vote while the AfD was running (for a week, with a large deletion template on the page itself), a reason to reopen discussion on a deletion? I fear a yes answer will substantially increase traffic and bureaucracy, both here and on AfD. -- SCZenz 21:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule, no. But this article had a substantial history with many editors contributing, and was well edited in a narrowly technical sense. Given that many editors did see enough of a point to contribute to the article, none of these editors spoke up during the AfD, and the AfD had a small participation, I lean towards giving the article a second chance. --- Charles Stewart 23:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak endorse close. Three votes aren't much, but then, people could have voted on it if they had wanted to. That said, I might change my mind if significant new information is given to ascertain why the article might have had a different outcome in a new AfD. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per the theory above by Rossami. Had this been listed early in the morning, the outcome might be different, and that's not right. Turnstep 23:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - I agree with MarkSweep above and think the content is encyclopedic information about a notable topic. -HannahAviva 7:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

BORED

Dear fellow wikipedians, i myself have been a law abiding wikipedian.. but currently i have created a new article on "BORED", an organization that i founded with my fellow peers. It is an organization of 100 members worldwide, in cities such as LA, new York, Vancouver, Paris, London, Liverpool, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Sydney. But the user Shreshth91 keeps on deleting. Please give me permission to post it and protect it from deletion. Thank you - --Larryau 12:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: A examination of the deletion log shows that two different admins have speedy deleted this article. Based upon the description of the organization in the article (a student group in Hong Kong founded on November 19, 2005 and using a gmail address for a contact point) it is not unreasonable to assume that both admins saw the article as a hoax. Providing some reliable sources to verify the existence of the group would go a long way in determining if this should be undeleted. --Allen3 ^talk 13:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speaking only for myself: no. Reasons:
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it is not intended as a listing service, collection of loose information, webhost, or promotional vehicle. In effect, it's supposed to serve its readers, not its editors, by providing what the readers what to know and not what the editors want to tell them. First, your club has to have gained the attention of people, THEN you get the article, not vice versa.
  • Related to that last bit, it's pretty well accepted that the subject of an article must have some impact -- minor or minimal, but nevertheless noticable -- on the larger world. Permit me to doubt that a three-week-old club has done much more that get itself organized, if that.
  • Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable; that is, the facts in the articles must have some reliable outside proof of their existence: books, newspapers, archival documents, sourced witnesses, photographs, whatever. Your group was formed less than a month ago, and unless you can provide some third-party proof of its existence, its details, or even that anyone outside your immediate circle or yourself has heard of and documented its existence, it's going to fail that basic test.
• Good luck and all that, but good intentions won't get you special exemptions from these and other basic standards. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy delete. Sorry, Wikipedia isn't a web host. Rhobite 13:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy delete for the excellent reasons given by Calton. Thryduulf 13:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Though it doesn't quite fit as a textbook example of any speedy criterion in particular, it's something that absolutely, certainly, without-a-doubt would not survive an AfD under any circumstances, and thus should be kept deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Starblind is right. Your article would not survive AFD, Larryau. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Please use your own web site for this sort of thing. Uncle G 15:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Great page, Uncle G! I'll have to keep that bookmarked for use in future AfDs. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 20:55:31Z

• Undelete, speedy deleted and undeletion requested in good faith. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Gamaliel 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy delete. Nandesuka 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, it was speedied. Yes, we have a request to bring it back. But, I say keep deleted, even though it was a common-sense speedy. This isn't an article that we want on Wikipedia, and it would only be deleted via Afd if it were restored. Thanks to Calton for taking the time to explain why this article isn't Wikipedia material. Friday (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted One shouldn't encourage out-of-process speedies, but when one is done in a case where the delete result is clear and indisputable (even the nom. doesn't dispute this is basically a vanity page, though he hasn't used that word for it), it should be left alone. Xoloz 19:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - This is an out of process speedy made for apparently false grounds (Shreshth91 claimed group doesn't exist), first speedied 2 minutes after creation. I'd say Shreshth91's way of deleting comes close to admin warring: why no friendly message on Larryau's talk page asking what is going on after the 2nd delete? Should we be bending the rules around speedies to back up what looks like abuse of admin powers? I'd like to see Shreshth91 defend his/her actions here. --- Charles Stewart 19:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted without endorsement - I think this case is sufficiently hopeless, and enough people have looked at the content following DRV, that WP:NOT a bureaucracy applies: we shouldn't list on AfD. The speedy was pretty bad as out of process speedies go, though. --- Charles Stewart 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Tεxτurε 21:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Abuse of admin powers?!? This was a common-sense speedy. I'd have deleted it too, and I think both admins who did delete it used good judgement. Yes, I'd probably have also explained to the user on their talk page why the article is unsuitable, but failing to do so is hardly "abuse", in my opinion. Friday (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  It looks like a revert war, only with admin powers, to me. The message on the talk page would make a big difference, as would an explicit acknowledgement that there were no CSD criterion to cover the speedy, but I'd still say that this is pushing it. I hope Shreshth91 responds to my invitation to contribute here. --- Charles Stewart 22:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  There was no disagreement among the two admins who deleted it. We do have a CSD that covers vandalism, and joke articles are defined as WP:VAND. -Splash^talk 22:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  And terming it "abuse" is overusing an overused word. People should remember precisely what it means. -Splash^talk 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  I meant the word abuse, and I did not say it happened here, only that appearances suggested that. I'd like to see what Shreshth91 has to say about this, in the meantime I'm not going to speculate what he/she might have judged to be the case. I'm guessing you aren't claiming that Larryau was actually perpetrating a hoax or vandalism. --- Charles Stewart 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• So, if i get this group on some sort of publications such as newspaper, this article would be eligible... and you may delete the contact address. --User:Larryau
  • No. Self-promotion isn't the route to an encyclopedia article. It would be the case if (for example) two or more journalists wholly independent of you decide that the group and its activities deserve "in depth" feature articles in their publications, write such articles of their own (Simply using your group's press releases wouldn't count.), and publish them. Uncle G 02:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Explanation of deletion. I deleted this page because after some research, I found that the band has 0 Google hits (even after searching 100 pages). Hence, I thought that it was vandalism and deleted it. However, if the user should provided some credible references, I would be glad to undelete this page. Moreover according to CSD A7 an article about a real person that does not assert their importance or significance can be speedied and I feel that this is certainly one of those cases. However, if the community at large feels that this deletion is unjustified, I can undelete this page and move it to AFD.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation: reverting what you thought was vandalism is good faith exercise of your powers, so I retract my suspicions of admin abuse. I still think this is mistaken: if the content at Larryau's home page is a fair indication of the deleted content, it clearly does not fall under WP:VAND, and whilst it might be fair to call the content vanity, it doesn't fall under the current formulation of WP:CSD A7. I think that this is careless, and that speedying is an area where admins should exercise special care. --- Charles Stewart 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  Postscript I don't think there is any need to restore the article: the DRV has provided a review that is adequate in this case. --- Charles Stewart 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted No sources. Ashibaka tock 23:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. Nominee is disrupting the site with this garbage. Sorry, but I'm not feeling a lot of Wikilove right now. - Lucky 6.9 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

SCinet and Storcloud

The SCinet page was speedy deleted first by the reason of spam-link and second because of copyvio. SCinet is a high performance network created annually at the IEEE/ACM SC conference. It is a major part of an annual conference and has been covered by the NY Times [49] and other media. It has been around for 14 years. It is not a corporation or business, but is a network created annually by a group of volunteers from various academic, industry and government research labs. There are no copyright violations in effect. It has had a significant impact on high performance networking and computing over the past 14 years and I do not believe this deletion was appropriate considering Wikipedia has entries for Comdex and Siggraph.

The Storcloud entry was also speedy deleted for copyvio even though the page has been around since September and there are no copyright violations. Like SCinet, it is/was a part of the SC conference, focusing on storage vs. networking. This initiative only lasted a few years and is currently on hiatus. - Steve Lau 06:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. User's only edits are to this discussion. Content was added and re-added via anon IP's and sockpuppet accounts. Googling some lines showed these as clear copyright violations. One user asked that it be left on record to somehow satisfy his wife, who I assume is part of the group trying to get these pushed through. - Lucky 6.9 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, of what relevance is the fact that Steve Lau's only edits are to this discussion? He's the nominator, not a sock puppet supporter. —Lifeisunfair 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and rewrite. Both Scinet and Storcloud are real networking events that have real significance in the high performance computing community. Steve Lau works for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (as a google for '"Steve Lau" scinet' will show) and is one of principals behind scinet. It seems likely to me that he was using some of the promotional text, not realizing that it violated copyright. Lucky, please don't bite the newbies - not everyone who contravenes a rule is a spammer. Our response to these being copyvio should be to rewrite and de-copyvio them, not to mindlessly delete. Nandesuka 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've undeleted this. I'll take responsibility to make sure that the copyvio parts are addressed promptly. Nandesuka 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Nandesuka, please do not restore copyright infringing texts. Any revisions resting on such text will now need to be deleted. The only solution is to write original work. -Splash^talk 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think I misunderstood the process. Both pages have now been re-deleted and re-created, without reference to the original copyrighted text, with new text written by your humble narrator. They're, uh, very short right now. But I'll be expanding them, so please don't nuke them out from under me. Nandesuka 18:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there a chance that someone can discuss the copyrighted text, perhaps giving a reference to it? It's unclear to me what text is at issue here. Given the inappropriate ambitiousness of the original deleter, I'm skeptical that there is a real violation. — Doug Luce
• Wrong-o. You or someone was posting copyrighted material from another source. I asked several times that if you were going to add something, do it in your own words. The pages now look great thanks to the efforts of another user. - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

December 4, 2005

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Lanarkshire Council

This discussion was deleted, for unknown reason. It is linked from an archive of deletion votes (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 24). - Mike Rosoft 11:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• It looks the confusion is from that it was changed from a VfD to an AfD(hence the inital redirect on the archive); then that AfD was closed because the article had been redirected to South Lanarkshire. Seems fine to me. Peyna 15:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Really the only problem was that whoever closed it just deleted the AfD instead of marking it properly; given that it happened in a period of transition, it's not surprising. Peyna 15:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• To clear up the confusion, I suggest restoring the last page with any content [50] and then marking that with the proper closed afd templates with the outcome "deletion request withdrawn" (or words to that effect). Thryduulf 15:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I just tried to restore it so the page could be properly archived. I'm afraid I may have made this worse, though. Not sure what's going on with this page. Regardless, the content was very light. It was a nomination made on 24 July 2005 and blanked one minute later by the nominator. Uncle G's VfD->AFD conversion bot moved the blank page on 20 Sep... Okay, let's see if I got it fixed this time... Looks like it worked. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well done. I endorse Rossami's decision to undelete. There's very few good reasons to delete an VFD/AFD debate, and I can't see a relevant one being used here. Probably a conversion mistake. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

December 3, 2005

Islamonazism

This article has been redirected to List of political epithets. This topic should be covered in wikipedia as it is a notable topic, connected to real historical events and is encyclopedic , here is a recent version to review Islamonazism. I suggest the article get reinstated on its own page --CltFn 04:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - 220 Google hits, most of which are other "pedias" and completely unverifiable. This term, unlike "Islamofascism" (287,000 Google hits) has no common currency at all. FCYTravis 09:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted --Victim of signature fascism 12:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong on Deletion Review - this page was never deleted and does not belong here to discuss what should happen with it. This is for reviewing process, not shortcutting arguments taking place on a talk page, or making a WP:POINT after an edit war. Take it to WP:RFC if you must, but it doesn't belong here. Peyna 14:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong on Deletion Review as per Peyna --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong on Deletion Review per above. Use an WP:RFC if you want to get a larger cross-section of the Wikipedian community involved. Deletion review does not deal with article content or redirects or anything which can be done by ordinary users via ordinary editing. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, delete and keep deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong for the reasons stated above, and is not in common currency. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong on Deletion Review as per Peyna --FRS 15:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This was in fact deleted before, and the reasons remain just as valid now as they were then. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Per Mirv, the article was already deleted by a valid VfD more than a year ago. I have speedily deleted the current article and protected the redirect, as the text inserted by CltFn was an EXACT copy-and-paste of the article deleted back in 2004. I think we can now re-open the Deletion Review. FCYTravis 19:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense but actually the article was never deleted before, cause you only just now have deleted it !! You should restore it now and wait for consensus before taking unilateral actions like that. --CltFn 19:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted, in September, 2004. The text you inserted is an *exact* word-for-word duplicate of the text that was on the page when it was deleted by consensus in 2004. I can delete the article per WP:CSD G4, "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in userspace, or undeleted per the undeletion policy." FCYTravis 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I also can find no evidence that this article was ever deleted. It was tagged for deletion on 20 Sep 2004 but the [[prior discussion was not closed out with a decision one way or the other. According to the Deletion Log, no deletion was carried out. As such, it does not appear to qualify for speedy-deletion. I have undeleted it. I will, of course, withdraw my objection if you can provide a link to a previous VfD discussion showing a clear consensus to delete and a link showing that the consensus decision was carried out. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because the deletion is too old to appear in the logs. -Splash^talk 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Now that I know where to look, I find this archive which shows that a version was deleted on 20 Sep 04, the day the prior nomination was opened. The next archive shows that the article was again deleted on 27 Sep 04 by user:SimonP who explicitly references the VfD decision. The edit history shows that the article was re-created as a redirect the next day. My apologies for the confusion. I am changing my opinion to one of endorse speedy deletion and recreation as a redirect (with a long comment on the Talk page in order to satisfy GFDL). Rossami (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually delete Phil Sandifer 21:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, although the article is not (physically) deleted the AfD stated that it should be deleted or redirected; meaning, the content should not be on the page. As a result to contest that finding where else would you go but here? I am not sure I understand why physical deletion is the issue when the goal for CltFn is to overturn the decision that the content does not belong on the page. He needs some avenue to question the decision from a year ago. Also, to not I suggested that he come here so CltFn should not be blamed for bring the discussion here, I should be. gren グレン 02:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The early "this doesn't belong here" comments were made before a VfD was discovered. It is worth pointing out also that the content above is a recreated redirect, and so only falls under the purview of the page tangentially. That said, keep redirected or delete redirect, for whatever this somewhat out-of-process vote is worth, because case for article failed at VfD, and no substantial case was made here. Xoloz 08:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment: just spell checking here. is "Islamonazism" even a word? If not, does it even warrent an article. For example, would we make an article about "Michiganism" or "Washingtonism", because this is what this article feels like. --Pat 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Muslims in business

This was recently closed by fuddlemark as "no consensus"; the AfD page is here. I count six votes for deletion and two for keeping. The closing admin states that "the comments seemed generally sympathetic to the article, and User:Durova, while advocating deletion, conceded that if the content could be better-restricted, the article would be worth keeping". This is fully misreading consensus. The article was listed as part of the effort to get rid of the more unreasonable Lists of professionals with a certain religious affiliation. Durova sums up the consensus in his statement: "We've been moving toward a consensus per WP:NOT that lists of religion/ethnicity and profession are notable when the two are demonstrably linked", and all votes to delete echo the sentiment. Pilatus 00:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would have closed this as a delete. But, we all have different ideas of consensus. Calling it "no consensus" isn't blatantly unreasonable. Before bringing it here, I'd have discussed it with the closing admin and seen if he was willing to reconsider. Friday (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I understand Mark's reasoning it just isn't the consensus that had emerged from debates in the previous days such as this (note Durova's statement!) and this. The job of the closing admin is to gauge consensus, not to impose his version of it. Pilatus 16:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, but there's a thin line between an admin imposing his version of consensus, and making his own judgement about consensus. This illustrates one problem with Afd- it's pretty much random who closes things, and different people can have vastly different views on what's consensus. I don't see that just being an admin makes one good at such judgements. I've seen some admins who are very good at it, and some who are not. Of course, it's easy for me to say that consensus was judged incorrectly in this case, since to me this article clearly needs to be deleted. We could have a panel of people who look at close Afds and decide how to close them instead of just one individual, but then we'd be adding yet another bizarre ritual to our already-bizarre deletion process. And, of course, some people think that the minute it's remotely debatable how to close an Afd, this makes it a "keep" by default. Closing things that way results in keeping a lot of unverifiable junk, in my opinion. Friday (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to know what User:Pilatus thinks he means when he accuses me of "imposing his own version of [consensus]". I'd like to assure Pilatus that I am very well aware of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, having read through it and finding it a "gripping thriller of a read, from page 1 right until the end; you'll not be able to put it down, and the surprise twist will shock you!" (you can quote me on that, for Wikipedia 1.0). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Stet. Fuddlemark gives an excellent summing up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I respect the admin's obligation to exercise judgement, but I disagree with the closer's stated rationale and I'd like to see him reconsider. I'm concerned that he's mis-characterized Durova's views in particular. -- SCZenz 09:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like for fudd to have some input here, I've pinged his talk page. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note, Aaron. Not being a regular on VfU, I'd never have noticed otherwise. Re: input, I believe I explained myself well enough when closing the AfD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the closing admin's argument was well reasoned. If necessary, reopen discussion for 5 days. Also, please review the recent discussion on List of Jewish Americans and related articles. 15:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peyna (talk • contribs)
• BTW as far as the content goes, to me this is pretty clearly not a keeper. I've started a discussion on the talk page about why I think this is so, since some people don't like discussion of the merits of the article here at DRV. Friday (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• While I disagree strongly with the general premise made during the discussion that these "list of..." articles are intrinsically valuable, that point was not rebutted during the debate. There was sufficient justification to support the closer's decision to override the strict vote-count. Endorse decision but without prejudice against renomination after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto Friday and Rossami. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• To me, this is a good example of how Afd/Drv stifles the process of achieving consensus. I believe almost anyone engaging in rational discourse on the talk page would come to agreement that this content isn't encyclopedic. However, Afd has this silly 5 day tradition, and the equally silly "whoever happens to close it gets their version of consensus" idea. Although a few people disagreed with the closing, people aren't disagreeing strongly enough to overturn. So the question is, how do we fix this without causing people to scream that we've abused the process and having it brought back to deletion review again? What period of time is sufficient to wait and Afd again? And why bother waiting, are we assuming the article will improve? That seems unlikely, as the objections being brought up are about the topic rather than something easily fixable. If consensus emerges on the talk page that this should go away, would anyone object to it being deleted without another Afd? Friday (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Such consensus won't emerge on the talk page any more than it did in the AfD. -Splash^talk 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn Close (delete). The consensus to delete is clear, here, IMOP. final votes are 6:2 for deletion. One person stated that he would "like" a reason to vote keep, but wasn't ready to do so. Even if you include this, that still makes it 6:3, still a probable delete (although not nearly as clear cut). True, one user indicted that a change in the inclusion rules would change his vote, which was a clear invitation to others to edit the page to change those rules. But no one accepted that invitation. If recreated with different rules, that would IMO not be "substantially similar" and so could have a renewed deletion debate. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - There may have been sympathetic opinions towards the article, but I am against having things categorised by race/religion/ethnicity. - Hahnchen 16:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:First Standard.jpg

According to the caption [51] it's published more than 50 years ago. In other words, it's already in the public domain. — Instantnood 17:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, it would depend if the copyright for the original work was renewed or not, but even so, this doesn't belong here. The image was not deleted, it was just removed from the page. Please take this discussion to the talk page for the article and try to reach a consensus. If that fails, try WP:RFC. Peyna 17:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The image was deleted. —Lifeisunfair 18:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused by the edit history from The Standard. Peyna 18:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• We can't restore images. You'll have to get it from a mirror or the original source. Sorry. -Splash^talk 18:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been unable to locate a mirror, other than Google's cache (which includes only the thumbnail version). It's my understanding that it sometimes is possible to retrieve deleted images from backups. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, not without have devs trawl through databases. -Splash^talk 18:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is to say that admins can't do it, and deletion review can't make them. You'll have to find someone with a dump and some time. -Splash^talk 18:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that this is not ordinary, and would require a developer's assistance. I'm just noting a possible solution (if other attempts prove fruitless). —Lifeisunfair 18:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So is it like we've no way to recover this image? — Instantnood 07:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

PotterCast/Pottercast

The Leaky Cauldron (website) one of the biggest Harry Potter news site on the web and as admired by JK Rowling as MuggleNet (founders of both sites were invited to interview her for the book 6 release [52]) and therefore I think it's incorrect to delete its podcast based on lack of notability. Someones also said: In the world of Harry Potter, there's MuggleCast and everyone else." This is patently untrue as MuggleCast and PotterCast collaborated on several occasions including the premier. Melissa Anelli from The Leaky Cauldron was even in the latest regular MuggleCast episode (both of these can be verified in the MuggleCast archive for November under the headers: "MuggleCast Episode 17 now available for download " and "Goblet of Fire red carpet interviews"). Someone also said the next PotterCast episode was scheduled for the summer of 2006. Also untrue. Their list of episodes shows their schedule is hectic, but certainly more than once every half a year. It's been deleted as a recreation with a lack of content, but I think it deserves to be merged into The Leaky Cauldron (website) at the very least. Please review the decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete and merge both with The Leaky Cauldron (website) (and leave redirects). - Mgm|^(talk) 16:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• AfD link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PotterCast. Peyna 16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pottercast. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment please provide some verifiable evidence of your claims above so we can properly evaluate them. Peyna 16:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if TLC is notable enough to have their site included there's no reason not to merge the podcast. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've added a link to the MuggleNet archives for additional evidence of collaboration and Melissa Anelli from the Leaky Cauldron and PotterCast joining the Mugglenet founder in interviewing JKR for book 6. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and Merge per Mgm Xoloz 20:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete - merging is an editorial decision and ought be sorted out on the articles. Phil Sandifer 20:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse the original determinations. The Pottercast podcast is simply not notable enough to meet criteria. I work on a number of Harry Potter items, including MuggleCast and I believe that deletion was an appropriate decision. There was absolutely nothing unfair about the vote. I am very mindful that the spread of "PotterCruft" diminishes the genuine encyclopedic materials. Mugglecast greatly outstrps other podcasts, including PotterCast. MuggleCast has reached the number 1 slot on Apple's iTunes site on a number of occassions, while PotterCast, to my knowledge, has never broken into the top 50. MuggleCast has been the #1 podcast on PodCast Alley for quite some time. Mind you, Mugglecast only barely made it past its own AfD. As I wrote before, there's Mugglecast and everyone else -- and that's absolutely true. Jtmichcock 20:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

'Comment: One thing I should mention, the Leaky Cauldron website noted above already has materials on PotterCast, so this is not certainly an instance where people will not be able to locate information about PotterCast. Jtmichcock 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

*UD and Redirect Deletion review isn't about content issues so unless there's a policy issue with the deletion shouldn't be overturned, that being said I don't see any harm with undeleting and redirecting and having the content merged over to the leaky cauldron website article. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying the deletion was out of process. I'm saying the voters were not fully informed of the facts. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• History and Content merge and redirect as clearly stated in Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Reasons_why_an_article_might_be_requested_for_undeletion undeletion should only be used for out of process issues which would not include content issues, that being said it also says that content that can be used should be made available for other uses by means of a history only undeletion or a history merge so my proposal is to history merge them and leave a link to the last diff of that content on the article on the talk page so that those who are interested can merge the content off the history and into the main article at will. This also satisfies GFDL requirements and all policies I believe. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this kind of thing mess up the diffs in the period where both articles were edited? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't though I admit it is a fairly tricky procedure. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete. It's a weekly podcast connected with a very popular Potter fan site, and several mistaken statements about it were made in the course of its deletion process. *Dan T.* 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no process problems with the debate or the closing decision. The evidence presented above does not convince me that the decision was in error. Individual podcasts, like individual radio shows, should pass a very high hurdle before being included in an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ah, I think the next episode in summer commented was based on the line in Pottercast which was referring to the next live podcast. Most of them are recorded. I think the material in Pottercast about the podcast at the premier and the interviews with the cast needs to be covered in the website article, maybe move it to a talk subpage and merge the content (if people don't want a article namespace redirect). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge PotterCast into and redirect to The Leaky Cauldron (website), with the revision history restored in compliance with the GFDL. I'm utterly baffled as to why this didn't occur. If The Leaky Cauldron is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry (and I know that it is, given the fact that I'm familiar with the site, despite not being a "Harry Potter" fan), there's absolutely no conceivable reason not to use this text to expand the pertinent section of the article. Quite simply, AfD goofed. —Lifeisunfair 10:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reirom

This article was deleted AND protected against recreation, the archived discussion can be seen right here: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Reirom

The reason for its deletion was that this person is non-notable/vanity page. So then I shall provide proof that this subject is indeed notable.

He was well known across the emulation scene back in 95-00. His broken English and his alleged "ROM monopoly" was a matter of joke for everyone else in the scene. You can see some examples here: [53] and here: [54] A little while later he began to post in gaming forums and was responsible by a lot of Internet memes. His famous expression "am cry" was used on some gaming magazines such as PSM and by some companies such as Bungie and even more recently, Nintendo. Proof can be seen here: [55] and here: [56] He is very well known on a lot of gaming communities, such as Gaming-Age ([57]) and is as close to a Internet celebrity as you can get. In fact, he may be one of the first Internet celebrities. Now, if Wikipedia allows Internet memes articles such as Star Wars kid, Tourist guy and ORLY why can't Reirom be on Wikipedia as well? The reason it was protected is that it was being constantly vandalized, however this isn't reason to keep it deleted, it's a reason to actually create it, because the article wouldn't be vandalized if he wasn't known and noteworthy.

Therefore I ask the process to be reviewed and the page to be unprotected so that a good article can be written on it. If you have any doubts please inquire before voting. Thank you. --200.153.138.244 14:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse. The new evidence presented does not convince me that anything has changed to make this person any more remarkable than they were when the vote took place 7 months ago. The closing admin followed proper procedure. Peyna 14:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's also worth nothing that all of the other articles cited above as evidence of notability of this article have ever been up for AfD (with the exception of Stars Wars kid, which survived multiple times), so I find it hard to use that as evidence that this is notable. We need more proof that this person is not unremarkable, not proof that some other Internet phenomenons have articles. Peyna 14:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Proof was presented, Bungie, responsible for Halo series for the XBox console, used one of his expressions on their website. He was also connected with a Halo 2 leak. Nintendo used it in one of their games. Therefore he is not unremarkable. --200.153.138.244 14:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid VfD, no notability. 172 unique Google hits is nothing at all for a supposed "Internet celebrity". Hell, I have more Google hits than that, and I don't claim to be a "celebrity" of any sort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Try again: [58]. I'm not sure why Google in English returns so few results. --200.153.138.244 14:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there's even less unique results that way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is bit weird, sometimes I get more than 6000 results, yet a few minutes later if I search it again I get about 300. Probably something to do with google. --200.153.138.244 14:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Proper closure, new evidence not from sources I'd consider reliable. Xoloz 20:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How is a picture hosted on Bungie's own server and a photograph from a Nintendo game not reliable? Or is that because I don't have an username? Jesus... --200.153.138.244 00:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please be assured that your anoni-mouse status isn't an issue. One thing to know about posting here is that this is a highly specialised forum. By design it deals only with a very narrow set of criteria (although we'll ignore those rules when we feel like it, but that's another story.) This can mean that posters not familiar with DRV can feel, well, roughhoused. Browse the history of this page, and you'll understand that the response isn't personal. But do consider getting a username, it's easier for everyone. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - that was the overwhelming position of the original VfD voters (once anon votes were discounted). VfD closure was proper. BDAbramson T 22:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Allow to be recreated - Much of the justification for not allowing recreation appears to be based on the following non-logic: I've never heard of Reirom, therefore, there should be no Reirom entry in this encyclopedia. You can extend that further to, say , Hilbert Spaces (an extreme example, but it can be applied to any subject): I've never heard of Hilbert spaces. To me they are unremarkable. Therefore such a thing should have no place in my encyclopedia. By applying such elitest reasoning to any x subject is potentially very dangerous, and, if you will indulge me, is knowledge solipsism. Now, as far as the alleged unremarkableness is concerned, how is a Nintendo game featuring a Reirom Internet meme non-notable? Wikipedia am cry. AnIco 01:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Richard Gregg

Since I am an exceedingly new admin (promoted a day early by accident, no less), I thought I should submit my action on this for review. The page above was deleted as a page not asserting the importance of the subject, and this was appealed on Wikipedia:Help_desk#Deleted_article. I thought the speedy was borderline (the article said the individual had authored a text in 1936, albeit without the significance of the text, and had external links), and the additional info presented on the Help desk page made it clear it would be overturned sooner or later. As such, I just went ahead and undeleted it. If I did the wrong, let me know and my apologies. -- SCZenz 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I expanded this article some but it certainly still needs more work. Nevertheless, this should not be a controversial keep. I suggest closing this discussion, if such a thing is possible on this page. If somebody really feels an urge to delete the article, it should be brought to AfD, where it will actually be seen by more people who could possibly help in improving further. Tupsharru 08:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's definitely not speediable now, and I thank you for the improvements you've made. I doubt very much that there's even a reason to AfD it. I am only requesting comments on my own actions, which were marginally outside-of-process (but clear common sense in this case). -- SCZenz 08:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• The Help desk evidence and the improvement on the article now show it is NO LONGER speediable for being non-notable. I applaud SCZenz for overturning this decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted, no need to AfD Not a household name by any means, but the claims in the article, if true, are certainly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted. "Marginally out of process", but clearly common sense is just fine. And, thanks for inviting review of your actions here, even though I agree completely with what you did. Being bold and inviting others to review your boldness is a Good Thing. Friday (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• This article should under no circumstances have been summarily deleted, and it was obviously right to undelete. If you suspected that it was still deletable, you should have taken it to AfD, not here.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's deletable at all, so there was no reason to put it on AfD. This page reviews all deletion decisions, and as a new admin I thought my decision to overrule another admin ought to be reviewed; it being a deletion decision, this was the right place to bring my request. I'm not sure I understand your objection. -- SCZenz 22:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One clarification: look at what the article said at the time it was deleted and undeleted; it's understandable that two people (the sd-tagger and the deleter) both overlooked what wasn't an obvious assertion of notability. We all know it's a clear keep now. -- SCZenz 22:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose I'm asking you to show the courage of your convictions. The last thing we need is undeletion of speedies overseen by committee--a kind of sick imitation of Afd in reverse. Contrary to what some people may tell you, this page does not review all deletion decisions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't have brought this here if I had more experience, because it was quite clear-cut. For shades of grey, I think seeking the opinions of other users is invaluable; this is true for anything, but especially when overruling another admin's presumably well-considered decision. -- SCZenz 08:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Administrators are good guys generally but they do may incredibly bad mistakes sometimes. Correcting another guy's error, particularly on the magnitude of deletion, isn't a matter where good faith is in any way impugned. Shit happens, but remember that the intention is to build an encyclopedia, not bolster a bureaucracy that frequently operated only to hinder that process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Your points are well noted (except for the last clause, where I'm not sure what you mean). I will have more confidence in reversing clear-cut errors in the future. Nevertheless, "administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users" (from Wikipedia:Administrators); I feel this statement gives me the obligation to request second opinions when I'm not sure I have properly exercised the will of the community. -- SCZenz 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The will of the community has absolutely nothing to do with out-of-process-deletions. You just undelete them and, if in doubt, list them for deletion (at which point the will of the community *does* come into play). It's in the undeletion policy if you care to read it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
        • This page is for the community to determine if a deletion or undeletion was improper. If he was uncertain that his undeletion was appropriate we should encourage him to post here for review. - Tεxτurε 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted, there's a difference between non-notable and not widely known. He might be the latter, but he isn't he former. The latter certainly need to be included in Wikipedia. Peyna 15:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted, speedy deleted out of process, immediate undeletion was appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep undeleted. Bringing this here was IMO exactly the right move. Tony Sidaway has long had issues with the scope of this page, and advocates admins taking unilateral action in "clearcut" cases to a degree that many people disagree with. His view is not without support, nor irrational, but IMO it does not represent a majority view, much less a consensus. Bringign improper speedies here, either before or after undeleting them is IMO a veruy good idea, as it helps to educate people on what is and is not a proper speedy. An alternative is to drop a note to the deleting admin -- if that person agrees that his or her action should be reversed, there is usually no need to list here. There is, however, no requirement to try that first. DES ^(talk) 22:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike Lorek Fan Club

This article was deleted by User:OwenX. I feel that the AFD process was not handled, "in good faith". Instead of listing valid reason to delete the entry, or listing things they would like to see done to the entry to make it worthy to stay, comments were made about members of the organizations social lives. Then when valid points were brought up in the discussion about the organizations activities in the local community, no one replied. I feel that the arguments for the entry to stay were not even considered once the personal attacks began. Improvements to the entry could be made to make it Wikipedia worthy, but no one listed what would need to be done, the entry was simply just written off. I like the idea of a discussion process to decide whether a page stays or not, but there should at least be a discussion and all the facts should be considered. I've provided a link to the Articles for Deletion page, judge for yourself whether you think this was handled, "in good faith". [59]Ognit Ice 06:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sniff, sniff. Smells like good faith on the part of the regular contributors. As for the anons who cropped up and voted "keep", I do have reason to doubt their good faith. Nonetheless, I'm confident that a reasonable decision was reached. Friday (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike lorek fan club. I agree with User:Aurochs. Just because a topic is notable within certain circles does not mean it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ognit Ice, I have no idea what "personal attacks" you're talking about. See WP:NPA if you're confused about the term, which has a (perhaps unfortunately) specific meaning here on Wikipedia. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 06:45:59Z

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Lorek Fan ClubOgnit Ice 06:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that! To clarify to others, there are two AfDs here with different capitalizations: here and here. I stand by my opinion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 07:16:25Z

• Keep deleted, afd was proper. None of the anons had suffrage. —Cryptic (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Debate suffered from a plague of sockpuppetry; valid AfD, any less-than-ideal climate caused by self-proclaimed "club members", including "Vice President". Xoloz 20:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually the comments about the club members social lives were made before any of the club members responded. Personal attacks on peoples social lives are not, "in good faith". But its not like it matters, attacking newbies seems to be the norm on Wikipedia and this is a losing battle that's not worth pushing further. Ognit Ice 21:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. There is a difference between sarcasm and person attacks, and I doubt that User:Just Zis Guy You Know? intended his comment to be any kind of personal attack. Regardless, the AfD was completed properly and even if a few users comments are found to be in violation of WP:NPA, does not make the AfD invalid. Peyna 15:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close (keep deleted). Afd was proper, and none of the comments either on the AfD or here indicate any particular notability or impact made by this organization, and of course all keep comments were from people not logged in. It would have been in better taste to criticize the article with no comments about its authors, but all those comments were in the vein of "This is so bad that anyone who would write it..." and thus were primarily comments on the article, if poorly phrased. lack of general notability is a good reason to delete, and no refutation was provided. No bar to recreation with proper verifiable evidence of notability and encyclopedic value. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

December 2, 2005

Sholom Keller

This article was deleted by User:Jitse_Niesen in spite of no consensus. Count was actually 6 keeps, 6 deletes. User:Zoe made an accusation of sock puppetry which was proven to be untrue, but influenced later votes. The person in question returned 125 Google hits including newspaper articles such as this [60], this [61], this [62], this [63], this [64], this [65]. Is a confirmed anti-war protester, who is unique (?) in that he served in both assaults on Iraq. His influence has been enormous both in his native USA as well as throughout the world, as giving a lot of justification for why we should not be in Iraq.

Incorrect assumptions were made during the Vfd in relation to him "only being listed in blogs", in spite of the article actually quoting and referencing newspaper and television reports, and included a photograph of him speaking at a public rally. The vote was influenced by a large number of incorrect assertions.

As part of this, as you may have read elsewhere, I was incorrectly accused of vandalism by User:Splash in relation to this edit here: [66] in which I changed 3 votes from "Do not Delete" to "Keep" to avoid confusion and prevent what seemed to be the steamrolling of it towards a deletion. There has been a lot of discussion about whether Splash had a right to do this, or to revert the edits.

When people say "DO NOT DELETE" it shows they don't understand the deletion process. Changing other people's comments and effectively hide this fact may not be vandalism, but it's not recommended either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This person is a very controversial figure, as he opposes official US government policy, and a number of attempts have been made to silence him. This is precisely why his article needs to be restored. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sholom_Keller. Peyna 02:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should remain deleted. The administrator provided a well reasoned basis for his decision; votes alone do not determine the outcome of AfD. The admin discounted Zoe's contributions as weak, and discounted Michan's contributions as the creator of the article. He ignored most of the IPs that voted because for most of them, that vote was their first edit. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Peyna 02:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on "newspaper articles" listed by Zordrac in his support of an undelete. (Yes, those are scare quotes.)

• 1. High school student newspaper apparently created for a class on Humanities.
• 2. "online art forum where artists can share their positive viewpoint of the world"
• 3. Website to leave messages to those that have died in the War in Iraq. Sholom Keller left the message "Johnson, You're in my prayers."
• 4. Small newspaper in Hopkinsville, KY quotes Sholom Keller in a story about Keller's then pending deployment to Iraq, “I think it’s about time we stick up for the oppressed people in the Middle East,” said Spc. Sholom Keller of Company C, 501st Signal Battalion. “I’m hoping we can finish up what was left off [in Desert Storm].”
• 5. Shalom Keller posted a comment in response to an Indymedia article on G8 protests.
• 6. A listing of events in the area includes "Iraq Veterans Against the War" with Shalom Keller speaking.

-- Peyna 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from closer: "If there had been a references to a national newspaper or magazine or something like that, I would have kept it, but blogs just don't cut it, I'm afraid.". And there were 3 such links. I provided 5 more above. Closer's own argument was fatally flawed. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is getting absurd. Of the 6 votes Zordrac counts as keep, one was himself, one was me, two were anons, and two were users who had no contribution history prior to this article. The admin who closed the Afd, User:Jitse Niesen, quite reasonably discounted the two anons and one of the no-prior-history users, and made a perfectly reasonable call. As for the stuff about accusations of vandalism, you can go read User_talk:Zordrac and User Talk:Splash and make up your own mind. I don't see any fault in the process here, and I think Zordrac is just being childish. If it helps any, I hereby retract my Keep and change it to Extreme Elbonian Delete, with Dogbert Clusters. That should seal the consensus to delete beyond any reasonable doubt. --RoySmith 02:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am the admin that closed the discussion. I have nothing to add beyond my closing comments and those of Peyna and RoySmith above. I undeleted the page and moved it to User:Jitse Niesen/Sholom Keller pending review. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? -Splash^talk 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Why what? If nothing else, 6/6 is neither consensus or a majority view to delete. The people have spoken. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Funny how often I'm seeing "passes the Google test" being used as proof of notability. Hardly! As I have pointed out elsewhere, I get over 36,000 hits from a simple Google search for my website (which is a reasonably unique string), but it is certainly not encyclopedia material. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:33:53Z

• Comment - I thought I'd point out here that I neither wrote the article or made a single edit to the article. I have no interest in the topic. However, when correct processes aren't followed, it tends to get me pretty annoyed. This is my reasoning for the undeletion request. From a personal point of view, I'd never heard of him before, and indeed had no idea that there even existed a guy who was a former soldier that was running around complaining about the very thing that he was part of. I am surprised that he wasn't arrested as a terrorist given the current climate. It is quite possible that he is not overly notable. But if you looked at the article, it was very well written and articulate, and was a good article to keep. That was my basis for voting to keep it. I am neutral with regards to this article, and have no strong opinions one way or the other. I do not personally care if it is deleted or not. The issue is the process, which was very clearly not followed - and that is not just by the closing admin's decision to delete after a 6/6 vote. There were a number of other factors, including Zoe's actions, that did not follow correct process. It was a typical example of steamrolling. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, shrill charges of incompetence and bad faith are treated with the sort of distance they warrant. Tone down the rhetoric, and try persuading instead. -Splash^talk 04:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry? I thought I made it explicit what I was claiming:

1. The vote was 6/6, which usually means "no consensus"
2. No sock puppets were used, hence it is a valid 6/6 vote
3. Claims of sock puppetry were made by Zoe, which were not true
4. Latter votes referenced the claims made by Zoe, suggesting that this influenced votes
5. Interference by other users may have influenced vote
6. Immediate AFD for the image used, prior to completion of undeletion process has added to it.

Now, if people are making their decision, both to vote for delete, to delete an article when there was no consensus, and then to vote to keep it deleted purely on the basis that well-founded suggestions of correct process not been followed, and secondly, if the very same people who were involved in that vote are now making comments here, then I think that there's something terribly wrong here. And I will say this: if correct process is not fixed up for this case, then I will use this as an example. And it will convince the broader public of the inherent problems with this system. Now, if any of you who are acting in an inappropriate manner wish to distance yourself from this, then I suggest that you start adhering to correct principles, and treating this properly. If you want to make arguments that it should be deleted on the basis of notoriety, then fine, do that. I have my opinion as to what should be deleted, and you have yours. However, we all agree on correct process, and that is the issue being discussed here. Correct process was very definitely, unequivocally NOT followed. There can be absolute no dispute about that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry? The closing admin has the perfect right, nay, obligation, to discount any suspect votes. Anyone who has a very brief Wikipedia presence or an anonymous ID is certainly eligible to be discounted, which was what was done in this case, quite correctly. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my original assertions with regards to your behaviour in this vote, and that it was used as a deliberate attempt at steamrolling a deletion. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, article was correctly deleted by counting the votes of valid voters. I never said anything about sockpuppetry, merely pointed out that one of the voters had never participated on Wikipedia before, which is a valid consideration for the closing admin. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For reference, Zoe's comments were as follows: "nn 'agitator and theoretician' " (Original listing); "They can vote (it's actually 'discuss') but the closing admin can discount them" (response about IP address votes); "User's only edit" (in response to a vote by User:FluteyFlakes88; "Your 'research' is highly flawed. I never said any such thing. I said that some people consider them heroes. My motive has solely to do with the lack of notability of this person, whose views I personally support" (in response to accusation of personal bias). I see nothing that demonstrates any accusation by User:Zoe of socketpuppetry by anyone. Please retract your statement regarding this accusation. Peyna 05:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No retraction. Her comments about IPs were effectively accusations of sock puppetry, and influenced the votes. Quite clear. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And to confirm the evidence that false accusations of sock puppetry influenced votes, there is this one:

"Delete - blogger with fairly weak Google hits. Also the sock puppet voting isn't helping my opinion either. HackJandy 07:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)"

Ergo, Zoe's comments influenced the decision towards delete. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That's what comments are for: to influence the decision. That's the whole point of the process! Did I miss something in the context here? —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:20:24Z

Good, we agree on that. Now can we agree that they were not sock puppets? I think that there's enough evidence of that. They were pretty obviously not sock puppets. False claims of sock puppetry being used to justify an article being deleted is not correct process. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppet. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

False claims of accusing other people of making false claims is not correct process. Discounting the votes of anons and people with no other, or very few, edits on Wikipedia is perfectly valid. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The only "process" that we are supposed to be reviewing is the admin's decision in deleting; not whether a certain user voted properly. The admin followed procedure and used his discretion in determining to delete the article. There is nothing to indicate that "process" was not followed. If a few voters were misinformed, you should not be concerned, since from the Admin's own statement it is clear that he took all of this into account.

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I see no procedural problems with this decision. The closing admin made a judgment call that was well within allowable discretion. While verifiable facts are welcome from anyone, the unsupported opinions of anonymous and very new users are routinely discounted because it is functionally impossible to distinguish them from abusive sockpuppets. Rossami (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep deleted- the closing admin did a good job. Not sure why there's such contention here. Political appeals for why articles should be kept (or undeleted) are not relevant; Wikipedia is not here for (or against) any political agenda. Friday (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• To User:Zordrac: Please careful about making assumptions. You'll only make an ass out of you and umption. First, you're assuming that User:Zoe's comments implied accusations of sockpuppetry, which they did not. They merely implied that the voters were very new users and that ought to be taken into consideration. Secondly, there is no basis for believing that User:HackJandy based his statement upon User:Zoe's comments in anyway. Even if her comment did have such an effect, she is not to blame for that. Peyna 05:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. This was a difficult one, but the closing admin made a well-reasoned decision. That's his job. -- SCZenz 05:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I nominated this for undeletion because I felt that the deletion process was a steamroll. I am now seeing an undeletion process which has the exact same contributors who contributed in the deletion process, and with the exact same result - steamrolling. My points have neither been addressed or responded to. This is, in essence, a complete and utter joke, and is acting as a kangaroo court. If the only justification for deleting something is so that you can oppose me, and the only reason for you to oppose me is to support your friend, then I think that that says it all. There is no point for me, or anyone, to make a nomination to the undeletion process when it involves the exact same people who cause problems in the deletion process. I had been advised that undeletion was fair - this has proven to be false. I am very much losing faith in the entire system. Oh, and if someone is allowed to make false accusations, but I am not allowed to point out that they are making false accusations, then that is as RIDICULOUS as it gets! I am sorry, but if you guys could look at the kind of things that you are writing, then you'd see that. I am not going to bother with this discussion any further. Its pointless. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You're trying to change the rules. The rules are, and have always been, that an admin has the right to decide whether or not to count the votes of anons and people who have just signed up recently. The decision to close was completely in line with every single Afd and Vfd closure that has ever been made. You cannot suddenly change the rules just because they fit your own personal opinion. Otherwise, anybody (especially people like myself, on AOL) could just keep voting with anonymous votes and the closing admin would have to count them. Or people could create tons of sock puppets (not -- I am not and did not in this discussion accuse anyone of being a sock puppet) to vote over and over again. Your ranting is serving no purpose other than to harden people's opinions about you. I have said all I have to say on this topic and will not discuss it with you again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Excellent close, reasoned and thoughtful, discounting of anon's within discretion, RoySmith's comment very telling, Mr. Zordrac seems to be verging on making a WP:POINT today -- his "reasoning" has approached sophistry, and his tone is certainly bellicose. Xoloz 06:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Restore - I was the "sock puppet". I've been working on wikipedia articles for quite some time but never bothered to register a username because I didn't figure it mattered. Some articles I've created are Rose Pesotta, Life and Labor Commune as well as edited numerous articles under the anarchism subcategory. The goal of wikipedia is consensus and yet near half of the people who took part in the discussion (remember, it's not a vote!) felt that the article should be kept. And yes, there were verifiable sources. Here's a few from mainstream newspapers: 1) Article from Weekly Dig, Boston's 3rd (or 4th) largest paper [67]

2) Sholom is quoted BEFORE he went to Iraq. He explains why he SUPPORTS the war, an opinion he dropped once he got to Iraq. [68]. 3) This is a carbon copy of an AP article that was run in both the NYTimes and Boston Globe but has been taken down off of both of their sites. [69]. I hope that this can be of some help in settling the dispute over this article. --FluteyFlakes88 06:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As I said, I am 100% neutral in this case - I have never heard of him, couldn't care less about him, and am not put out whether it is deleted or kept. This unfortunately means that I can't make sound arguments for it to be kept based on my own personal knowledge of him. I can only make assertions at this stage based on promise. I think that it is very clear that correct process was not remotely followed at any stage, and that in my opinion the worst offender in this was Zoe, not the closing administrator. In my opinion there was only one case of bad faith, that made by Zoe, when she made the false accusations of sock puppetry. The closer made the correct assertion that they were not sock puppets, and Zoe has since insisted that she did not mean that they were sock puppets, and indeed that they were not sock puppets. However, a number of people have since asserted that they have interpreted the closer's decision as being based on sock puppetry - this is not true. However, the fact that you have interpreted it in this way merely highlights the problems resulting from Zoe's indiscretions. This is, in essence, a clear-cut case of steamrolling. Whether Zoe did this because she hates hippies, or loves America, or what, who knows. I suspect it was more along the lines of just having a bad day and feeling like taking it out on someone. As for the rest of you, I think that you have all got in to a case of being defensive to protect your friends, and have been blinded, and unable to see what is right in front of your face. For example, accusing me of acting in bad faith by saying that Zoe made false accusations is wrong - because Zoe did make false accusations. Ignoring arguments such as there being 6/6 legitimate votes is wrong. IMO at a bare minimum the article should have been relisted. However, realistically, 6/6 is a "no consensus" vote, and is a keep. I am arguing here about process, as a part of deletion reform. My intention is philosophical, not personal. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Zoe and I have had our differences in the past, but your assessment of her behavior is off base. She did not accuse anyone of suck puppetry, nor did she do anything else that could reasonably be construed as inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 14:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The alleged irregularities simply don't exist. The discussion was valid, as was the outcome. —Lifeisunfair 14:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Looks valid. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The actions of Zoe and the closing admin are completely ordinary in the context of AfD. FreplySpang (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Discounting of votes by people who are not logged in and by users with very short contribution histories is absolutely standard in closing AfD results. So is pointing out such users "durting" the discussion. Neither of these is in any way improper, nor an attempt to "steamroller" the discussion. The conclusion that this person is not notable enough for a wikipedia article seems to be rational and well within the proper zone of judgement. a newly created, different article, with different evidence of notability would, if created, need to be debated separately. What Zoe and the closer did was perfectly proper, as many people have said here. User:Zordrac should pay attentiuon to the many and varied people who are all saying the same thing here. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tzmerth shmarya

This article was first nominated for deletion on 22 Sep 2004: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tzmerth_shmarya, with the result being a unanimous 4-0 keep vote. It was then renominated on 26 November 2005: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tzmerth_shmarya with a 1-4 delete vote, and was deleted. The argument put forward is that it was still a stub after more than a year, and hence should be deleted now.

I would like to contend that firstly the overall vote is still 5-4 in favour of keep, that secondly nothing had changed between the two votes to warrant a deletion, and that thirdly it was a confirmed valid article, just in stub form.

Please can you review this decision and consider undeletion.

P.S. I personally have no interest in the topic, just felt that it was unfair for it to be deleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

P.P.S. Another possibly relevant factor was that this time around, all 4 delete votes failed to provide any reason for the deletion. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. How is "not notable" not a reason? As I interpret these two deletion discussions, the article was given a chance for survival, it failed to turn into anything worth keeping, and has now been accordingly deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:39:37Z

Also, I would point out that in my limited experience, an uncommented delete vote implies support for the nominator's viewpoint. I'm not sure I could come up with a specific link demonstrating it explicitly, though, and I certainly don't do it myself, specifically to avoid these sorts of situations. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:42:20Z

Its true that 1 of the 4 voters wrote "nn". The other 3 wrote nothing. To me that suggests a lack of discussion, and that correct processes were not followed. It was regarded as notable in its first vote, henceforth a "nn" vote without explanation is not correct. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No, three of four delete voters explicitly stated not notable. Please re-read the AfD discussion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 04:45:39Z

There are three "not notable" votes, plain and simple! Renata3, the nominator, clearly stated his/her reasoning, and then voted delete beneath it. Denni spelled it out in words. Rogerd used a very, very common abbreviation. Izehar did not comment. That's four deletes, three with a justification. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:11:26Z

That is false. I have quoted what was actually said below. Please retract your statement. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you have left out Renata3's comment, in which the reasoning is very clear: "This article is hopless and not notable (IMHO)." (excerpted). —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:15:35Z

The nominator? LOL. Yet another example of people acting like sheep, and precisely why this whole voting process is messed up. That's what I was getting at here. The process is wrong, because everyone acts as sheep and blindly follows someone's unproven assertions. Renata3's actual vote, by the way, is below. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're unfamiliar with formatting practices on AfD pages. It is quite common for the nominator to provide his or her reasoning in the template that goes at the top and then record the vote in summary underneath to make the closer's job easier. To interpret this as a vote with no rationale is simply absurd. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:27:33Z

Okay I am going to cut and paste here to avoid confusion and false accusations:

1st VfD more than a year ago. It was kept under "clean up" provision. But in the last there was only 4 very minor edits. This article is hopless and not notable (IMHO). Renata3 23:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC) (Cut and paste missed a significant portion of the AfD discussion, evidently! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:29:08Z)

1. Delete Renata3 23:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Delete Not notable. Denni ☯ 03:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Delete NN --Rogerd 03:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Delete Izehar 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That is 1, and only 1 user writing "Not notable" (Denni). A second user, Rogerd, said "NN". The other 2 made no comments. And indeed, not a single one of these 4 users gave any rationale behind the vote.

Compare this to the original discussion, which I will cut and paste here to avoid confusion and false accusations:

Keep -- seems interesting to me. Wolfman 06:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep - looks like it could do with some cleanup though -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 07:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Wolfman & Zaphod Beeblebrox. ScribeOfTheNile 11:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Alright, let me be the one, then, to point out that the article is misnamed. Also, it needs clarification of context. How as there a "Mossad" before there was an Israel? Perhaps that's something Everyone Knows, but it seems contradictory to me. Furthermore, all this interest on the Mossad seems...well...iffy. So, rename to Tzmerth Shmarya, if that's his name. Clean up. Geogre 14:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• After looking into this for a bit, it appears that Mossad was initially organized in 1938 for the purpose of aiding illegal Jewish immigration [1]. I don't know if this organization was reorganized into Mossad as it is known today or if the name is just a coincidence. The article Tzmerth shmarya associates him with Yehuda Arazi and the Darien II (a ship), which appear to be real (lots of hits for Arazi; sole relevant hit for Aliya Bet Darien is [2]). This article seems meaningful and interesting, although it will benefit from cleanup, and references especially. Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Anyone looking for info on the web should bear in mind that there are many alternate transliterations for Hebrew words. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now, if we were to look at that, as an analysis, we can conclude as follows:

-1) The first vote made very real assertions of notoriety, and it was discussed at length, resulting in a unanimous 4-0 vote to keep. -2) The second vote did not address the original claims of notoriety, and there was zero discussion.

This is my rationale behind nominating this for undeletion. I think that a discussion should have taken place. After all Wikipedia is not a democracy, and 4 votes with no discussion don't carry a lot of weight, do they? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And again, you seem to disagree that "not notable" is a valid reason for deletion. There are many, many editors here who consider that a perfectly valid "rationale". —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:18:26Z

I am arguing policy here, not talking about the "not notable" tag. If they had made valid assertions as to *WHY* they thought that it was not notable, then we wouldn't be here. Not a single valid assertion was made! If you check my history of voting, you will see my regularly voting delete on bands that have never released an album, on authors that have published no books, on people that have done nothing, and especially on articles on anything that picks up 0 relevant google hits. I for one think that notability is relevant in deciding on deletion. I for one vote delete about 60% of the time. If you personally think that that is too infrequent then that's fine, that's your decision. I am voting delete the same amount as the average person who votes, and my aim is to make sure that this is a fair process. At present, I do not believe that it is a fair process. You, like a number of others (mostly deletionists) have suggested that I am voting keep every time. This is not true. I have even nominated articles for deletion myself, as I did this morning on Mamnuts. Suggesting that I don't want anything to ever be deleted is very untrue. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Never, ever did I suggest that you are voting keep on every article; in fact, I'm positive I have seen you vote delete (maybe on Slibe?)! I am not sure yet whether or not I'm really a deletionist, but regardless of whether or not I am, I certainly see the value in the inclusionist point of view. Where I have problems, as you have probably noticed, is when articles are extremely poorly written (and I consider articles with a clear advertising tone to fall under this description). I haven't put a lot of thought into this yet, and this isn't the place to do it, but roughly: I think in such cases, it is not worth the collective effort of Wikipedians to maintain these articles. Wikipedia would be better served if the article were deleting, leaving a good-intentioned author a nice, clean slate to start with. I'd be happy to continue this discussion elsewhere! :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:59:33Z

I try my best to always leave nice positive notes when deleting, if it is a good faith attempt. For example, often with band vanity, where they are a struggling band that really needs a bit of advertising to get somewhere, and probably created the page in the hope that Wikipedia will advertise for them, I have left them a little note of encouragement. Being in a band is a really tough thing - whilst 1% make it, 99% don't, and for most it is a big money and time sink. Its worse than being a student, because at least if you're a student then you're going to get something at the end. And a lot of these artists are really good. Indeed, if it weren't for Wikipedia rules, I would probably think of allowing some of them to be kept. But I am big on following rules. It is very important to me. I can disagree with the rules, but I believe in trying to change the rules through argument, not through disobeying them. That is a big part of my philosophy. That's why you see me arguing on here, rather than just going ahead and re-creating these arguments. By the way, I have no idea what the article above was about, or what it was called, or anything. I don't think I researched the article at all before voting. I did enough research (per the original vote) to verify that it was notable. I voted "keep" on a matter of principle. I was not originally going to vote for undeletion because I really don't care on a personal level. However, because I am very neutral on this individual issue, I thought it was a good case of something which I could use as an example of the need for deletion reform, and I felt that the best way to do this was to go through this process. I actually thought that it did have merit and would be undeleted, and, if not for the whole controversy with the other vote, I suspect it would have. Which leaves me to ponder whether I should have nominated the one above for undeletion, given the manner with which the original vote was steamrolled. Tzer--- whatever his name was wasn't steamrolled. That was a case of sheep-ism. It was a case, as has been described in many other cases, where a nominator made an assertion based on a personal bias, an assertion that was not backed up with any research. And then everyone else just played follow the leader. That's about as simple as it gets. And IMO it should be renominated for deletion. I don't think it necessarily should be kept - I just think that there should be debate. Whether it ends up being kept or not I couldn't care less. The issue is one of process and fairness. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're generally doing a good job, and I really appreciate having someone around who will make an effort to save noteworthy topics from deletion—assuming you're willing to do more for the article than cast a vote. I make an effort myself, believe it or not. However, regardless of your philosophy, some of your comments here appear to be seriously misguided, to the extent that it appears you're trying to make a point. If you feel undue hostility from other editors, that may be why, and this isn't really the place to discuss it.

As a specific example, you note that you're big on following rules and accuse editors of steamrolling in the process of deletion. However, I believe there's a not-so-fuzzy distinction between steamrolling (and sheeply voting) and the simple expedition of bureaucracy and exercising of one's best judgement. You must keep in mind that many of the "rules" around here are only guidelines, and editors are free to disregard them when they feel it is justified. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 08:45:14Z

• Endorse closing (keep deleted). Again, I see no procedural problems with this decision. The first discussion was clearly a qualified keep with essentially every participant in the discussion noting that the article needed to be cleaned up and verified. However, the edit history of the article clearly shows that no such clean-up or verification occurred. A year is ample time for someone to have come forward. Since no one did, the renomination was entirely allowable. This was a very reasonable decision. It does not prevent someone from recreating the article in better form and with sources cited. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. No prejudice against creation of a new article that follows NPOV and cites sources. -- SCZenz 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This was a valid reconsideration which occurred nearly a year after the first vote. The voters' intents were sufficiently clear. To void the vote because one of them used an abbreviation, and the final vote simply voted, would be a pretty bad case of the uber-bureaucratic mentality that some have complained of. Xoloz 06:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it was given a year to be cleaned up. It didn't happen. Deletion was fully justified. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

List of modern day dictators

This debate was pulled after 5 days amidst grerat controversy. One editor asked for an extension of the debate. Having missed the debate by minutes I am frustrated it closed so soon and I was unable to vote and 5 days seems too soon to close such a controversial debate (it closed lacking consensus either way) and I am making a request to see the debate opened for another few days, SqueakBox 14:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The debate should be left open for a while. I don't see any need to hurry with these things, and this is a fairly difficult one to evaluate. I voted delete but I could perhaps have been convinced to change my mind. I wasn't entirely sure of my vote, and I think that's probably common. It's the same with people who voted to keep. You leave it open longer, you improve the chances there'll be a more workable outcome. Everyking 15:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said-- and better formulated than my own request to extend the discussion period at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. Administrators have the discretion not to follow arbitrary timetables when it best serves Wikipedia, and they should not shy away from using it. 172 15:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. My personal view is that the article should have been deleted, but there was not a consensus to support that decision, and I closed the debate after the standard 5 days lag time (actually, the AFD started at 03:12, November 26 and closed 13:20 December 2, so it was open for more than six days.) because it looked unlikely that one would really develop. Just reaching a two-thirds majority would require something like twelve more "delete"s, and that is assuming that nobody throws in a "keep". Note also that 172 has been actively campaigning for votes on user talk-pages [70], [71], [72], [73] and about 20 other such notices. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, there have been a lot more than twenty. The users who have been receiving the notices don't seem to mind; those commenting on the matter have stated that they were happy to get them. I also appreciate it when I'm notified about important AfD votes. I don't follow AfD on a regular basis, meaning that without such notices I usually have little idea about what's going on myself. With the additional feedback from those who have not gotten a chance to take a look at the discussion, I can't rule out the possibility of a consensus emerging if the vote is extended for a few days. 172 15:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Nominator says it "lacked consensus either way," so the proper action was not to delete. The policy is still "when in doubt, don't delete." By all means work with the article. Keep the NPOV tag on it indefinitely as far as I'm concerned... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close, don't relist I voted to delete and would personally like to see this article gone, but I also doubt that a consensus is going to develop on this AfD. I disagree that many people are going to change their votes. Even if this were to happen, it's just as likely that delete voters would decide to keep instead. As Sjakkalle pointed out, there would have to be a flood of delete votes (without any additional keeps) to even approach the lower bounds of consensus. I'm not entirely against extending the AfD, but a consensus just seems exceedingly unlikely at this point. Carbonite | Talk 15:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Overturn - in fact, absent a very persuasive reason why this is not permanantly POV, I will be overturning this myself. It is not appropriate to keep the NPOV tag on it forever - the point of that tag is a call to fix things, not an excuse for POV writing. Phil Sandifer 15:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer, There's a clear procedure about what it takes to overturn a decision (three-quarter supermajority to overturn, simple majority to re-list). Striking out on your own by unilateral decision would be inappropriate --RoySmith 16:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As has been said many times, a vote cannot overrule NPOV. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As soon as all the listed names are appropriately annotated (as good progress has been made towards), it will no longer be appropriate to include the NPOV tag. It is certainly not a permanent template. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to RoySmith, it's not much of a "unilateral decision" to relist the discussion for a few more days, as is often the case when an article is subject to a strong case for deletion but is not deleted after 5 days because the deletes happened to be at (say) 60 percent (as is the case here) instead of the needed 67 percent. 172 19:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone has changed administrative guidelines without telling me, 75% not 67% is the minimum threshold for consensus on deletion. And 80% is much preferred. If the vote had been hovering at 72%, I would absolutely support keeping it open longer. But I just don't see any real probability of the vote moving from 60% to 75% by staying open. I don't think it's likely it would reach 67% either, but even if it did, that would be "no consensus". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "consensus" is not as high on AfD as it is on RfA, where I think the 75% at the lowest standard happens to be applied. 172 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A quick search doesn't show me a page stating exactly what supermajority is a guideline. But I've frequently seen complaints about AfD results where the ratio was close to 75% (on either side). And non-politicized AfD's are often (almost always) closed as "no consensus" when they stand at 70% delete.

• Endorse Close. I'm pretty much in the same camp as Carbonite. While I did not express an opinion during the debate, if I had I would have said to delete it since it is hopelessly POV. Still, I agree with User:Sjakkalle (the admin who closed the discussion) that no consensus was reached, so I think he did the right thing by not deleting the article, and the decision should stand. Wikipedia is imperfect, and there will always be things we disagree with. Move onto something else and get a life. --RoySmith 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• The core problem appears to be that some people consider this inherently POV and some consider it quite the opposite. Each side shouts at the other that they are wrong. One side, just above, offers to shout with their delete button. Until the editors reach agreement one way or the other, there's no call to delete it. -Splash^talk 16:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  If the editors reach agreement to overrule NPOV, the editors should be overruled by NPOV anyway. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'm pretty certain you understood precisely what I said, so you're entirely aware of how circular your reply is. -Splash^talk 16:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Endorse Close - Tεxτurε 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist Debate closed too soon. 60% were in favour of an action. The debate had not finished. More people were coming to vote all the time. A consensus was highly likely — either delete, keep or (most likely) we all agree that we can't agree on what to do. By cutting the debate off before it had come to a natural end, all that has been achieved is to annoy users who will feel that they have been denied a right to participate, probably set off edit wars over contents, and ensure a quick re-entry for the article on AfD. If it had been allowed to end naturally, people would simply have agreed to differ and dropped the issue. It is a classic example how not to end a controversial debate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I follow your reasoning for why more votes would lead to a consensus. With over 50 votes in the AfD, we have a fairly good sample size to show that support for deletion was around 60%. Is there some reason why there would suddenly be a flood of votes for one side of the debate? As unfortunate as I believe the result is, it falls squarely in the realm of "no consensus". There really wasn't any good way to end this AfD because there would be plenty of people unhappy with either result. Carbonite | Talk 16:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks unlikely statistically, but from my position being among the users at the center of the discussion, I think we were reaching a climax as the delete votes finally coalesced into a coherent position in the last couple of days (after my mistake of initially putting up a brief and weak case for AfD-- assuming that the delete concerns would have been a lot more obvious to most users-- was addressed) that could have gone either way. At the last minute I do think that the votes would have been much more skewed one way or another, either moving toward a consensus for deletion or toward a consensus for keep. My guess is that relisting the vote will contribute toward a more finalized and well-accepted outcome one way or another. Relisting does no harm. So I don't see the point in doing so, especially given that some are expressing an interest in the AfD after not having had the chance to participate earlier. 172 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • FYI, if there is a resaon why Jdtirl thinks a consensus could be reached, it could be attributed to 172 40+ "invitiaitons to vote" to his freinds, which accounted for most (c.17/18) of the "delete" votes.
• Endorse Close - If there are certainly some dictators there is no reason why they cannot be listed. The only constructive way forward is to allow the article to develop to see if consensus will be reached. Further debate at this point would shed no light, only more heat. Let the article develop and then see if a consensus can be reached. There is no urgency here - and the article was listed for over six days, so it certainly wasn't colsed early. jucifer 16:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse Close - I have not tried to count the exact votes, which looked modestly tough with all the interspersed comments. But neither 60% nor 67% would be a consensus for deletion. Consensus is 75-80% (roughly) delete votes. There was nothing close to that shown, and no skew in that direction with the more recent votes. And it certainly wasn't a case where only newbies or sockpuppets voted to keep, experienced editors opined in both directions.

I'd request, 172, that you give up the deletion effort for a while, and work on providing helpful annotations in the new table format. A sentence or two can provide a lot of context for why someone is sometimes called a dictator, by whom, and so on. Me and several other editors have done this. Why not give us a couple months to try to shape this into an article that even you would think is worth keeping. If you don't think it has succeeded then, renominate it. (WP:FAITH and all). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait and see. I the meantime I think that your efforts on the article are commendable. Regardless of the other problems, the work that you are doing to ensure factual accuracy is essential if the article is to be kept. 172 19:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• A difficult decision for me, since as a matter of principle I don't see any reason we can't continually readdress questions that remain disputed. However, for this particular deletion decision I don't see that much is going on at the AFD to move toward a consensus. There is a slim possibility that new votes will make the outcome clearer, but there does not appear to be any ongoing consensus-building discussion that we are compromising by closing this AFD now. I would instead recommend that this be taken to a more discussion-friendly environment, like the talk page or RFC, and any consensus developed there can be presented to the community for endorsement in a new AFD. On the whole I endorse the way this was closed. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close. There's clearly no consensus, and if done properly this could be NPOV. However it is not NPOV as it now stands, and I support the removal of everyone on this list until a clear definition is agreed upon and sources are cited for why each entry fits. -- SCZenz 18:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close but relist promptly. It sounds like a number of us simply missed this one. Nandesuka 18:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist per Phil Sandifer/Snowspinner and FearÉIREANN. I hate the role in which I've found myself. I never much cared for negative feedback concerning my own administrative actions when I was doing a thankless job that someone had to do; but content issues trump personal considerations on Wikipedia. Snowspinner's maxim "a vote cannot overrule NPOV" is a principle that editors must insist on if Wikipedia is going to follow encyclopedic standards over pressures from certain editors that have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. 172 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close Valid AfD closed thoughfully by a serious admin within his discretion. Sanction Mr. Snowspinner, and kernoodle him with a kerfuffle of poofwiffery, if he follows through with his less-serious (goofy) unilateralism. Don't mind relisting, however. Votes must start afresh, as it would not be a reopening. Xoloz 19:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close: When an admin takes the time and initiative to close an AfD that has been passed over by others because they know it's going to be hairy, they take the time, do it honestly, and then have to come here, it is discouraging. Closing admin did all of these things. Keep it closed. Wikibofh 21:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close. The discussion quickly became acrimonious after an ill-considered remark by User:Zoe and outright rudeness by article author User:Juicifer, who remained rude even after returning from a ski trip. There is no chance of it producing a consensus. Do not relist or renominate because several people are working on the article. Gazpacho 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A totally unfair and unneeded personal attack. Please withdraw jucifer 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Eh? we're going to try to reopen an afd after its closure? Is deletion review broken now too? :-( Kim Bruning 00:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (leave as "no consensus") but without prejudice against a re-nomination after a reasonable period (at least a few days to let tempers cool). Rossami (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close While I think 5 days is too short, that 7 days is more appropriate this time of year, and 10 to 12 days should probably is needed in the slow months of summer to get a proper sense of the community, there is no reason to extend the vote for this particular article as opposed to others, other than that one side has a campaign has ramped up. Citations for the views is the way to handle something that is allegedly "inherently POV", and wikipedia has been able to handle far more "inherently POV" subjects, such as when human life beings on the abortion issue, in a quite enclyclopedic manner. Dictators are easy by comparison.--Silverback 09:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reopen. Reasonable request for continuation of a debate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Obvious no consensus, and with no apparent direction in the comments, none expected. Any votes here for other than Endose close are therefore more likely based upon the user's opinion of the article, rather than the merits of the deletion review. ^BlankVerse 17:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse close and present closer with something shiny for their effort. How much better a job than this could we possible expect a person to do? The article sucks, no dispute, but the arguments to delete just weren't there. The opening of an RfC was service above and beyond, and the considerable level of respect I had for the closer has just gone up 3.14% - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Skull fuck

I saw that the delete debate on Skull fuck ended up with a speedy redirect to Necrophilia after only one comment. I can't tell what was in the article, but I'd just like to say that this doesn't seem a proper redirect. Skull fuck is a hyperbolic expression of violence (e.g., "I'm gonna skull-fuck you"), I think. I'm not saying the entry article shouldn't be deleted, but shouldn't it have been a redirect to some sort of Slang article rather than Necrophilia? Herostratus 22:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• It appears the entry is deleted altogether, not redirected. I think deletion is the right thing, since WP isn't a dictionary; but the meaning of the term doesn't have anything to do with necrophilia, but is rather a violent term for fellatio, suggestive of forcible rape in this manner. See, e.g. [74]. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• I would support a redirect to fellatio. Offensive colloquialism heard in locker rooms, college dorms, etc.Youngamerican 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• I brought this up for a second AfD and things were clarified; the article was misguidedly redirected and then the admin corrected the problem with a proper delete. The redirect was inappropriate and it was corrected. Peyna 05:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Some article ought exist on this topic. I am wholly unconvinced that a redirect or the deleted content is the article that should exist. So I'll go with endorse close but remind people that deletion is not about salting the earth on a topic and never allowing it to return in any form. Phil Sandifer 19:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If an article on this topic were created in the future that was not the same as the article that was deleted, it would be considered just like any other article. Peyna 15:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

December 1, 2005

Mental Imagery

I move to undelete a cluster of articles with the titles: Mental Imagery, Motor Imagery, Visual Mental Imagery, and Auditory Imagery. These pages were deleted due to perceived copyright violation, and because some users thought they contained OR (see here).

I am a research aide in the Stephen M. Kosslyn Neuropsychology Lab, and the creator of these articles. I posted them in my capacity as an employee of the Kosslyn Lab, and have been granted permission to do so not only be the three authors by whom the original journal article on which they are based was written, but also by the publication, Nature, that published the original article.

Furthermore, these articles do NOT contain original research, but are rather a summary of work with cited sources, as in a review. The information they contain is from reputable sources, as confirmed by the editorial staff at Nature.

I am a new and inexperienced Wiki user, so please forgive me if there is some reason I am missing why Wikipedia should not host these articles. If there isn't one, please undelete them.

Thanks.

KosslynLab 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Unless the text can be released under GFDL, which a journal article likely can't, we probably can't use the original article texts (permission or no). However, I am still trying to figure out how Wikipedia:No original research could have been applied to ideas cited in Nature. Unless there's something I'm missing, certainly a rewrite in NPOV that cites reputable sources could not be deleted. Anyone else know what's up here? -- SCZenz 21:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm having trouble finding the deleted articles. Auditory imagery exists and is not deleted but the others appear to have never existed. Do you have the names right? I looked for Mental Imagery, Motor Imagery, Visual Mental Imagery and none of them have any deletion history. - Tεxτurε 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind... found them at Mental imagery, Motor imagery, Visual mental imagery. If you can answer the GFDL question or would like to restart the articles without infringing on a non-extendable copyright then go for it. - Tεxτurε 21:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete - I am not sure if I am allowed to vote here, or if this is not for admins, but, if I were to be allowed to vote, I would suggest undeletion for the reasons listed. It needs confirmation of course in order to abide by copyvio, but that is a separate issue. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, of course. Restoration of a copyright violation is totally inappropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per Zoe. I would have no problem if the author would like to start afresh, as SCZenz suggests (in fact, I think it's an interesting topic and would like to see it discussed on Wikipedia!), but there's absolutely no reason to undelete the article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-03 05:04:48Z
• Comment Can someone please explain to me why, even in light of the information I have provided above as to the origin and permissions status of this material, it is still considered copyvio? KosslynLab 19:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if you are the author, articles published in Nature are copyrighted, and you would have to get their editorial approval to republish the material here. It also has to be specifically released under the GFDL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As noted in my original statement I HAVE obtained editorial approval from nature specifically for publication on WP. Furthermore, the articles in question are adapted excerpts of the original article. How do I get the article "specifically released under the GFDL"? KosslynLab 00:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You need a letter from them telling us that you have the right to specifically release the information to GFDL. Then you need to post it on the article's Talk page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Will an email suffice? I have one. KosslynLab 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In light of your comments and some friendly advice from Rossami, I will specifically request that Nature Reviews Neuroscience release the content under the GFDL (not just for publication on WP, for which they have already agreed), and I will consult with Prof Kosslyn and the other two authors to make sure that they understand the provisions of the GFDL and are willing to license their work under it. Assuming this all goes well, what documentation do I need to provide (and in what form) in order for these three articles to be undeleted?
  • I belive that an email specifically staing that all relvant rights holders have aggred to relase under the GFDL with a copy sent to "permissions at wikimedia dot org" and another copy posted on the talk page of the article involved, should do the trick. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission for more inforamtion. You might want to use {{Confirmation}} on the relvant talk pages -- after the email has been forwarded to wikimedia as mentioned above. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cobbstealing3rd.jpg

Image was removed for having the {{nosource}} tag, but as it was a photograph of a 1909 event, it should qualify for a {{PD-US}} tag instead and be restored. Caerwine 21:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think images can be undeleted, unless things have changed on the technical side. You could reupload it with the proper tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Christopher Parham is right, we can't restore images because MediaWiki doens't have that feature (yet; it's being written). Note also that simply adding a tag doesn't meet the requirement for having a source — we can't check that it is PD-US without a source proving that it was taken when you say it is. -Splash^talk 21:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, had anyone bothered looking at the article, particularly [75], that would have quickly been sorted out. So yes, this was a bad deletion, but there's nothing we can do now. Shame on the admin who did it - image deletion is non-reversable, and thus requires extra care. Phil Sandifer 21:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Found the photo on a mirror and restored it. Be more careful, guys. Phil Sandifer 21:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I also see several redlinked images in that article, which is bad on the deleting admin's part. -Splash^talk 21:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I retrieved all but one of them — the mirrors were missing the coca cola advert, so I took it out of the article. -Splash^talk 22:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Actually I came across the redlink to this in the Charles M. Conlon while stub sorting. Normally I just go ahead and delete the red link while doing the sorting (by the way, this is far from the first image red link I've come across while stub sorting), but the text there was enough to make me wonder if it should have been. Anyway, thanks! Caerwine 23:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert of Basevorn

Please see, for context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_of_basevorn

This article was marked for deletion on the basis that it was "original research," and should be removed "unless someone can be bothered to take a scythe to it and trim it down to a proper article".

It wasn't really original research, any more than a standard encyclopedia article is, just a matter of digging up and collating of facts, nothing "original". But it was not sufficiently documented, so it may have looked like unsupported speculation or something of that sort.

It was, however, a bit turgid, and did not read like a web-based encyclopedia entry. But the author (my student; that's how I know) then in fact did trim it into a more appropriate shape.

jfg284, who had supported the deletion, saw these changes and commented: "The author has cited sources, making it not really original research any more, and improved formatting to make it read less like a paper. It looks like he was bothered to take that scythe and trim it. Still not sure if it fits relevancy, because 14th centruy isn't so much my field, per se. Would vote keep other than this relevancy problem, now."

I can assure you of the relevancy. There were three major strains of rhetoric in the middle ages (and rhetoric was a Big Deal back then, one of the seven liberal arts that constituted the educational curriculum), and Basevorn was one of the most significant figures in one of those strains. Perhaps the author could add something more explicit about the Basevorn's relevance?

Since the formatting fits your requirements, and the relevance is high, can this decision be reversed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaHa (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep undeleted for now, but feel free to relist for more input. Only two votes to delete, nominator expressed doubt about deletion; it's not clear what the conditional delete voter actually wanted to happen but certainly there was an attempt to address at least some of those concerns. All in all, worth a second look. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep recreated, re-list at Afd. It appears the thing was just reposted by someone (other than nom.) Agree with Mr. Parham that the AfD is not iron-clad, given the insertion of sources, and the doubt of several voters. I support a second AfD, to give the community time to evaluate the revised article. Xoloz 03:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted I was one of the two voters for deletion on the initial pass through AfD. Following discussion with Prof. Randy Harris of U. Waterloo, I think this article (hopefully with improvements, and more supporting articles dealing with the subjects of rhetorical styles and their development) belongs in Wikipedia. I expect these to appear, and Wikipedia to benefit thereby. Pete.Hurd 04:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

November 30, 2005

Body parts slang and Body parts slang 2

I would like these undeleted. I am not an admin, so I do not know if there were any problems with the article other than WP:NOT-related, but I am willing to transwiki the articles to Wiktionary so that this useful guide for, e.g. doctors (CMAJ ran an article on foreign-language slang for body parts, targeted at pediatricians working at hospitals servicing many non-English speakers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unforgettableid (talk • contribs) 2005-12-01 01:57:06 UTC (UTC)

• We have already discussed this, and the result of the discussion can be found in the #Recently concluded section below. The articles have already been transwikified to Wiktionary, too. Uncle G 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• A useful guide for doctors??!!You did see the articles once, right? They're an endless collection of slang that successive editors overheard in their local pubs. We already discussed this, as Uncle G said and the stuff has been transferred to Wiktionary. -Splash^talk 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, since it has been transwikied already. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This was just discussed; there is nothing remotely useful to a doctor; it is already at Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Rossami. Xoloz 19:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I never saw the articles, and according to what I read, I thought they had not been transwikied. That's why I had put in the request originally. Oops. :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Things that have been transwikified are listed in the Wikipedia:Transwiki log. Uncle G 23:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Image talk:Autopsy of a Japanese victim killed in the Jinan Incident.jpg

I would like this image talk page undeleted. It was deleted by TheCoffee on 29 August 2005 just because it was an "[o]rphaned talk page." The deletion was done as part of the orphaned talks project and without vote. But I think the discussion in the deleted page is quite useful for us. --Nanshu 23:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Undelete, since it is not an orphan. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete if it contains material not available elsewhere. Depending on what the content is, moving to a subpage in project-talk space and deleting the redirect might be appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• The image is still there and shows no signs of ever having been deleted. I'm not sure how this was ever characterized as an orphaned talk page. I'm guessing this was an honest mistake. Undelete. Rossami (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I imagine it was mistakenly listed at User:R3m0t/Reports, perhaps generated by a bot. So, perhaps it might be a good idea to tell them about the error, so they can fix the bot appropriately? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete, original reason for deletion appears faulty. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think that in general we shouldn't be going around deleting talk pages that contain a reasonable amount of material on the talk page or in its history. There seems to be a speedy criterion for talk pages and that is almost certainly a mistake. Talk pages occupy their own namespace and the talk pages of deleted articles present no housekeeping problem whatever. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wessex Hall

→AfD nomination (multiple)

I would like for this page to be restored as Wessex Hall is part of the important story of how the University College Reading, then part of Oxford University, became a University in it's own right. I have been researching along with other students, the history of Hall for sometime. It has taken us a long time to try and research accurate information as part of a project within the hall and it will take time to sift through nearly one hundred years of history. The project is encouraging students to spend some time doing something useful rather than sitting in the Students' Union drinking, furthering education and knowledge instead. We were going to start expanding the article and 'colouring in the gaps' in the next few weeks but it makes harder if we have to start from nothing. I believe that although the current phase of the project is not visable to the online community it does share a lot of the social values that Wiki does.

• I was the closing admin, so I'll just make a brief personal comment: I think that, of the 4 articles deleted here, Wessex Hall is the only one that is at all undeletable, both from an AfD point of view and a content point-of-view. Two of the others were single-sentence stubs and another read like an extract from a start of term advert. That has to be weighed against what actually happened in the debate, however. Note to nominator here: Whiteknights Park and Reading University do both mention the halls, and probably taking the advice in the deletion debate (linked above) about adding summary info to Whiteknights Park is a safe course of action. -Splash^talk 02:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Won't it look a little silly in the middle of an article about an estate that it has been linked to for less than a quarter of it's history?. -sgu03mbt02:59, 30 November 2005
• We recently posted a letter with just 'Wessex Hall' on it in Northern Ireland and it reached us here in Reading, so it cannot be that much of a generic name!
• Comment. No assertions of notability were given in the AfD, which explains the deletion. If, as implied above, the dorm is especially notable for some reason, then it should be undeleted and relisted. Can we get a clarification on the way in which "Wessex Hall is a part of the important story" of etc....? -- SCZenz 03:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• If you are thinking in terms of just a "dorm" you are bound to assume it is trivial. British/US confusion here? Jameswilson 03:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Is the answer to SCZenz's question "No." ? Uncle G 03:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not assuming anything. I might be ignorant, which is why I'm asking for more information. (And in case you think there are no dorms with distinctive characters and histories at U.S. universities, and so I'm not aware of such places, I assure you that's not the case.) -- SCZenz 08:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC

• • Right then, as you know, older English universities are divided into colleges. They are the main focus of identity. I went to Oxford, and I would be surprised if anybody ever argues that individual Oxford colleges dont deserve their own article. I would say that 95% of my university experience was of my college and only 5% of the rest of the university. Ex-alumni return to their college not to the university.

At modern universities such as Reading which do not have colleges halls are, whilst not the same, certainly the closest equivalent. For example, somebody wrote that ex-students of Reading prefer to join their Hall association.

I am arguing that the mere fact it is a hall is in itself sufficient notability. Of course there is less literature because it is of recent foundation. As for Reading University in particular, I have never been there, so no comment! Jameswilson 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• If there is interest in an article and it does not breach any rules, why not keep it? It is very unlikely to offend anyone. Wiki has plenty of other articles which are a minority interest. We have at least 20,000 ex-members! Wessex was one of the first halls, if not the first to accept women to Reading - research is still ongoing.
• The previous article cited no sources whatsoever. One way in which you can change editors' minds is to list the sources that you plan to cite (You say that you have sifted through "nearly one hundred years of history".) this time around. Uncle G 03:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Citing can be added to the page with references to local government documents, archived documents, University documents. E.g.
  

Andrews, S. (2005). Wessex Hall. Reading, University Press.
Anon. (1917). University Diary. Reading, University Press.
Anon. (1917). Wessex Hall JCR Minutes 1915 - 1917. Unpublished - see University of Reading Archive.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.176.79 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-30 12:40:36 UTC (UTC)

• Keep deleted unless sources are presented here per Uncle G, in which case, assuming they're half-decent sources--like his hypothetical examples--I'll change my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those aren't my examples. I didn't write that. I've added an {{unsigned}} I've had a look to see whether that book has been published. I haven't found it yet. Uncle G 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry. Since the 2005 book didn't give the author's first name or an ISBN, I assumed it was a hypothetical illustration. If it is intended to be a real source, let's have the ISBN, please. Google Books knows nothing of this book, and the three references to "Wessex Hall" seem to be to other Wessex Halls. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Dpbsmith. Original article doesn't appear to establish notability. --Deathphoenix 15:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Those who think it notable should create a version that explains the notability. If they desire to see old versions for that, they should use the "E-Mail this user" link from my userpage, and I can provide them. Phil Sandifer 22:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• None of the deleted articles was even remotely a candidate for deletion. They should all be restored as redirects, at the very least. Redirecting in the first place would have saved us all the bother of the deletion debate and of this review. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The process was followed. Those that want the article kept should write an article that establishes the notability of that particular dorm. Pilatus 02:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist Wessex Hall. The paragraph reading Wessex Hall was founded in 1913, as the third Hall for women at University College Reading. It was part of the University of Oxford until, in 1926, the University of Reading was established as an independent institution. Wessex is now the third oldest surviving hall after Wantage (1908) and St. Patricks (1912). provides a good foundation for notability, and apparently sources exist for claims. This article has very good prospects for surviving a 2nd AfD, and good prospects for future growth. --- Charles Stewart 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Relist. The fact that the article was included with three other articles might have harmed it, and I think there is quite a chance that it survives a 2nd AfD, especially since the result was rather close. By the way, I could find no entry for "Andrews, S. (2005). Wessex Hall. Reading, University Press." in either Copac or the catalogue of the library of Reading University (that might be because the book is very new). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

November 29, 2005

Project Mohole

This was speedy deleted without review of the page's history. Project Mohole was a 1950s-1960s project to drill into the Mohorovičić discontinuity; according to the deleted edits, the page itself was vandalised into patent nonsense (for which it was speedied) on November 28, last good version on November 23. This one should be pretty easy. If all is well and simple, I'm requesting a full undeletion, so I can revert the article to its previous state. If there is some other version of this project under a different name (couldn't find one), I'm requesting a history undeletion to merge. Here are some google hits: [76] -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• This was clearly an accidental RC patrol deletion. I've restored it and reverted to the last vandalism-free version. -Splash^talk 01:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised

Could the circumstance of the deletion of the carefully and multiple source documented Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised “piece” be brought up for discussion? A few reviewers have been constantly deleting this contribution, then alleging that when the article is replaced by another that there have been multiple postings. It does not appear that these reviewers are sufficiently knowledgeable and thus objective about the subject. However, one could readily infer, because of these reviewers allegations of lack of a neutral point of view (a matter of some difficulty given the political circumstances of that island) that the sub rosa or even subconscious intent of these reviewer is essentially political. El Jigüe 11/29/05

• [77], second half. Since then, you added references, I'll admit that. It's plainly a POV screed, however, just as it was before, right down to the words, and is now under its fourth or fifth different title, not counting talk: pages. I endorse all the deletions. If restored, take directly to AfD. -Splash^talk 14:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the matter of POV is in the eye of the beholder. This article is on espionage and other intelligence matters thus by necessity reflects the overt views of the sources used and the clandestine nature of the actions involved. However, the article uses both Castro government and exile sources, as well as numerous other contributions. As to the matter of revisions, the article was and is in constant update. El Jigüe 11/29/05

In addition, this article covers almost 500 years of Cuban history El Jigüe 11/29/05

• Keep deleted. Original AfD for the original article here. --Deathphoenix 15:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Death have you read the latest much improved and expanded version? Or are you basing your decision on first draft El Jigüey 11/30/05

• No, I was basing it on what I could see as a regular user, not an admin. I'll take a look at the now-undeleted article at my convenience and vote on AfD. (not undeleted, not sure what I'm smoking) --Deathphoenix 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's sourced now, although the POV issue still remains. Since it doesn't qualify as a G4 speedy anymore, relist to have more eyes go over it and perhaps fix it. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete -- sourcing the article is a major change, if POV/verifiability is the major claim against the article. Since there appears to be agreement that this has taken place, undelete. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. At present I am trying to untangle the dramatic assassination of Mella in light of considerable additional information most especially:

Ross, Marjorie 2004 El secreto encanto de la KGB: las cinco vidas de Iósif Griguliévich editorial Farben/Norma, Costa Rica

this is causing some delay in presenting a more complete version. However, if I can get a few more positive votes I will re-post with a "challenged" caveat El Jigüe 12-1-05

The revision of the Mella assassination has been done. Tito (yes your namesake is mentioned) thanks El Jigüe 12-2-05

• Keep deleted. This was deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion as a re-creation of a previously deleted article; this same article has been re-created under at least five different titles and other articles have also had duplicates created, often with unsuitable titles (eg, Enrique Ros was duplicated as the now-deleted ISBN 1593880472), possibly as an attempt to spam search engines. See discussion at Talk:Cuban_espionage_and_related_extraterritorial_activity_revised#Deletion_of_this_article. Note in particular that this user does not accept basic Wikipedia principles such as WP:NPOV, and also does not even accept the GFDL, under which all contributions to Wikipedia (including his own) are released. The latter is especially significant: if he doesn't accept the GFDL he should not contribute anything at all. He writes magazine articles and polemical essays (or term papers), not encyclopedia entries. Attempts to explain the basics of how Wikipedia operates (WP:NOT, Wikipedia:No original research, etc) are met with rambling persecution fantasies. For what it's worth, he also edits talk pages by inserting his own comments (without attribution) in the middle of other people's comments, and edits other people's comments by adding "(sic)" after their typos. Note also that a previous deletion review failed: see [78].-- Curps 01:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Further comment. He is also "internally spamming" this article by linking to it from a dozen other articles (even unrelated articles such as American Civil War spies !). These links are accomplished in a clumsy way: for instance, this is one of his sentences:

Castro alleges that defense is the only reason he has implemented aggressive Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised from the 1960s to the present day.

He is also still creating duplicate articles: see Cultural collisions and mutual lethal contact and Culture clash pathologies, and spamming them with internal links from other Wikipedia articles. -- Curps 02:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

comment: perhaps the article is to broad for some people (because it seems to include a sub-category within its title). (Paradoxilly that makes the article more specific, right?) Anyway, sugestion: Perhaps the original author would be best to have a more general term such as cuban espionage. This could be part of the Espionage#Spies in various conflicts article. The extrateritorial activities could be mentioned within the cuban espionage article, giving it some substance. (perhaps a link to the cuban crisis would be interesting?) --Pat 14:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Image:Weiqi-Blca.PNG No undeletion possible 06:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. The Ubie: speedy endorsed. 05:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Merrr: speedy endorsed. 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
4. George Alexander (US Army soldier): no consensus close endorsed; AfD doesn't determing merge-v-keep. 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Packages in Java delete closure endorsed, with soft redirect to wikibooks. 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
6. AutoExtra.com undeleted and redirected to AutoExtra closed 18:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
7. List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society: no consensus close endorsed. 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401: original deletion endorsed. 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Judeofascism: deletion endorsed. 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Space Station 13: deletion endorsed. 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Nixon: Ruin and Recovery 1973-1990: undeleted and AFD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nixon: Ruin and Recovery 1973-1990. 19:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Gallery of Socialist Realism: endorsed as deletion. 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
13. MYOB: already rewritten as dab. 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Argentina v England (2005): overturned, undeleted, and turned into a redirect to merge target. 19:02, 3 December 2005
15. Trollaxor relisted (below threshold to overturn directly, but significant majority to do so) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollaxor (2nd nomination). 19:07, 3 December 2005
16. Joseph Vargo and Nox Arcana: left alone, nominator withdrew. 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
17. United Bimmer: endorsed delete close. 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Contingent work: undeleted, not relisted. 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
19. CrystalCherry: endorsed and kept deleted. 18:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Brian Peppers: endorsed and kept deleted. 18:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Fúsíjama Basketball Club International: restored and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fúsíjama Basketball Club International (2nd nomination). 18:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Category:Soviet spies: no action (close endorsed, with concerns). 18:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)