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.

Many administrators will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

Masud Rahman

A page was created in my name referring to me, and to some false and non-notable achievements, by a some people who knew me, as a joke. I was not aware of this page or its contents at any time while it existed, and have recently read the AfD page, which seems to contain hints as to what the page may have contained during its brief existence. Since there were some personal comments about me on the page, I am very interested to see the page; and it's various histories. This is a request for temporary undeletion.

Many thanks. Masud 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems harmless enough, I undeleted and moved it to your user space at User:Masudr/Masud Rahman. Let us know if you want it deleted again but I doubt anyone minds if you keep it around. - Haukur 11:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd like to maintain the content within my user page, can I simply remove the AfD (VfD) box? Masud 14:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Proto||type 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

moshzilla

I would like to have this undeleted mometarely. I started the internet phenomena, moshzilla, and own moshzilla.com, I would like to move the contents of the moshzilla entry onto the moshzilla site if possible. User:joshhighland

• Comment - Moved to content review section. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, no. Since you don't own the copyright to the material and have never edited the article, you can't drop the material into a website that does not use the GFDL to license its content. -Splash^talk 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to stop him having a section of his site which is GFDL and which contains the cotnent from the deletd article. There's no shortage of mirrors who do this sort of thing, and as long as it's properly attributed and stated that it is GFDL it's fine. -- AJR | Talk 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For the record, this user has a copy of the deleted content. He/she used it on 9 Feb 06 to recreate the deleted page. I am having trouble assuming good faith about this request. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2006 (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 July 15}}</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 July 15}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 15|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.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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 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".

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default.

11 February 2006

Heathian anarchism

This article's final AfD tally was 3 deletes, 2 merges closely edging on delete, and 1 keep, from the author of the page. The final decision made was to "keep", which I don't understand. Since the best merge suggestion offered is to an article that does not exist, and what is presently in this article would be insufficient for creating a new article, we're stuck in the meantime with what is a completely OR page. My suggestion would be either to delete it or move it to the creator's userspace. In the meantime we're legitimizing a topic that doesn't even exist. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Relist - true, the only person asking for it to be kept as-is was the creator, and most others wanted it gone or gone, but there were not many contributors overall. I would have relisted for further debate rather than closing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This approach to relisting is becoming a little concerning to me. Having "no consensus" as an outcome (call it keep if you prefer) is absolutely fine. People seem to be relisting enthusiastically just because there was no Absolute Outcome in the hopes of generating one. If that is what an editor wants, then they should carry out the relisting as an editorial matter, and not in the manner used on DRV which implies a rejection of the earlier debate's closure. -Splash^talk 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. I agree up to a point, but I don't think a couple of comments is sufficient to determine consensus, and I don't see why it should be a problem relisting where there are very few comments. Relisting because it's 20k/20m/20d is clearly nonsensical, but I don't recall that happening. I've seen several which have been kept after relisting when closing as delete would have been valid (a couple of deletes and nothing else). But I am becoming somewhat disillusioned with the whole process - nominate a web forum and every member will be along to vote keep, nominate a school at your peril, however bad the article and no matter that it is a commercial enterprise not a school, and so on. Ah well. I'm sure that once the Gastrich-induced cynicism has worn off I'll return to my usual sunny self, and maybe it'll improve with the Pareto effect of {PROD}. There is a slightly more pressing problem with this article: with zero Googles and no cited sources it appears to be unverifiable. Where's that list of templates? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Getting 6 participants is more than substantially many debates (see WP:AFD100 for statistics on this). AfD is (still) overloaded, and sending minor articles back there just because we hope for 7 participants rather than 6 seems a little, well, pointless. -Splash^talk 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, clearly. This doesn't even shake a finger at a consensus to delete. There is no need to relist since there is clearly discussion to be had elsewhere about what, precisely, should be done. Having 6 people in an AfD is enough, and there is no quorum for AfD and there never has been. The only reason to relist would be a lack of participation or a supposition that relisting would produce a different result because of problems with the first listing. Noone cites any problems with this listing, apart from its outcome, and so I see neither a case to relist nor overturn. -Splash^talk 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe if you're just looking at the numbers, and not reading what people have to say. There does appear to be a 5-1 consensus that this article should no longer exist. That it's divided by people who think it needs to be merged and to be deleted seems irrelevant. Sarge Baldy 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to what? To the question of deletion or not, no. To the question of exactly what state it should remain is as a result of the AfD? Largely, yes. People can decide whether to keep, merge or redirect for themselves in the case of an unclear AfD, and it is not the business of DRV to direct them on that. -Splash^talk 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it needs to be deleted. I'm saying it shouldn't continue to exist where it does now. "Heathian anarchism" is a term coined by the creator of the article. And right now we're pretending it exists. Sarge Baldy 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is for what we have the Talk pages of the article and its editors. -Splash^talk 21:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• What's there to discuss? This article is about something that doesn't exist. He might as well have written at the top of the page that the term was coined by Hogeye of Wikipedia. If you think that's a stretch, he actually DID put his name as a source in the article on anarchist economics. Sarge Baldy 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, you might wait a short while in case something turns up and then make a fresh AfD nomination with a much more compelling nomination than last time. "Not notable", whilst shorthand for a number of things is much less likely to win favour than "doesn't exist", "unverifiable", "original research" etc. Also, you did not at any point return to that AfD during the debate — it's necessary to do so when things aren't going as you intended, in much the way that you have intervened here. However, DRV is unlikely to make a purely content based decision and is equally unlikely, if not more so, to overturn that AfD debate into a deletion. -Splash^talk 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Though this may not be the place for editorial comments, why not just move to Spencer Heath and edit accordingly? -R. fiend 21:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't mind doing that, the major problem is that it is completely unreferenced and unverifiable as-is, that won't be fixed by moving it. But that's a content dispute, so I've taken it to the Talk page. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's not completely unreferenced, as it names the book from which this guy's philosophy is outlined: Citadel, Market and Altar. The problem I just discovered is that that book gets 101 unique googles (pretty small for a book that's allegedly the foundation of a notable philosophy) and doesn't seem to appear at Amazon. Is this guy just another self-published crank? I think we should move it (as proposed in the AFD), re-examine, and perhaps re-AFD, based on any new facts that come to life (such as "this guy is a self-published crank", if it turns out to be true). We shoudl also keep in mind that the anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, etc pages have been the scene of ongoing edit wars for eons, and POV, forking, and the like fly about all over the place. anythign connected to these topics deserves special scrutiny. -R. fiend 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The content dispute, and under what name the article should end up residing, should be settled on the talk page, not AfD or here on DRV. There was clearly no consensus to delete... I said keep because of a few reasons, but ultimately does it make a difference here if I said "keep" or "no consensus"? --W.marsh 21:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

List of software companies

Was deleted on 6 Jan, 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_software_companies). This was a useful list where software companies were sectioned based on country. I had created it way back in 2003 and was using it as a reference ever since. Today I went to the page to find out the list of software companies of a particular country, and found that it has been deleted. There is no corresponding Category on "software companies by country" either. I understand that all standalone lists have to be moved into categories, but since we don't have the "Category:Software companies by country" category yet, I request to undelete the list so that the category can be created using the info available in the list. Jay 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds convincing, undelete. Pcb21 Pete 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, aren't you an admin? Can't you just access the article yourself? Johnleemk | Talk 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just one question: if there is a need to sub-categorise by country (which I don't dispute), surely it's easiest just to work through the existing category? Half the companies on the original list were redlinked anyway. Not that I have a problem with undeleting this and moving to a user subpage, I'm just puzzled as to why there's a need. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I cannot imagine what possessed anyone to list this article for deletion, or the closing administrator to delete it. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete so we can categorize the companies, then can be brought back to AfD after categorizing takes place if someone so chooses, as list will probably not be useful after category is created. VegaDark 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-UN

This user does not support the United Nations.

This template was deleted despite an overwhelming number of the votes to keep (see here). What's more, after all votes were submitted, the Admin who started the deletion process, User:MarkSweep wrote, "The result of the debate was moot. This template was speedy deleted." An admin is implying that the process was irrelevant. I would like the deletion of this template to be reviewed and know if User:MarkSweep's conduct was appropriate for an admin.

• Comment I've userfied both boxes - see User:Userboxes/Anti-UN and User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU. Thus, CSD T1 no longer applies, but users who wish to either subst: or transclude this content may still do so. (See the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Use of userboxes). This was done in order to avoid the necessity for another lengthy debate rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Can we please avoid yet more tedious, repetitious discussions and get back to writing an encyclopedia? I'm getting sick and tired of this nonsense. Frankly, Wikipedia just isn't fun any more, and I'm not sure how much of my time I want to devote to a community divided by such petty squabbling. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore in the user namespace. I like Crotalus horridus' compromise. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Such an action should be taken on an en masse scale, and after achieving general consensus for such a move (I'd endorse it, for one), not in a piecemeal, haphazard fashion, and such a decision should be reached on the TfD debate, not on Deletion Review (which is only here to review the deletion, not to recommend third options that should really have been discussed on the TfD). Otherwise, we risk not only causing more chaos and disorder as anti-userbox admins get out of control with userfying whatever templates they happen to personally dislike, but also risk causing a lot of unnecessary revert-wars and POV problems: why does "anti-UN" need to be userfied, while "pro-UN" is perfectly fine on the templatespace? The only message that sends is that Wikipedia itself is pro-UN. We need to make such a move for all user templates, or for none of them. I'd support doing it for them all, but this is not really the correct place to start such a large-scale move. All we're discussing here is this TfD and current policy, which quite clearly shows that the speedy-deletion was out-of-line and that a full TfD discussion is in order (even if the ultimate result of that discussion is userfication). That's the only way to keep both sides of the matter happy, and to make it clear that users' opinions aren't being ignored and their views arbitrarily and unnecessarily censored. Speedy-deletes like this serve only to escalate the disunity and factionalization of the community, and should not be tolerated even if the userbox itself merits deletion. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV.--MONGO 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Then the correct vote would be "Overturn" and then, once it is overturned, to vote "Delete" (or even "Speedy Delete", if you think it's both inflammatory and divisive, not merely "unhelpful") on the reopened TfD vote. This is a discussion of process, not of the template itself: if the template isn't clearly and obviously meriting speedy-delete at this point in time (and it's not, as shown by the number of "overturn" votes here and "keep" votes there), it deserves a full-run of discussion to iron out the details and discuss this matter to a satisfying amount. Stifling debate here won't serve either side's interest (and will only serve to further polarize the community, emphasizing that there are two distinct sides and that one has no interest in listening or responding to what the other has to say). Discussion keeps a consensus-run editing community healthy, and forbidding a full discussion over this matter by endorsing out-of-process, unilateral, undiscussed speedy-deletion will only cause more damage and discontent amont Wikipedia's valuable editors, thus ultimately harming the encyclopedia. What's so wrong with letting the TfD run its course? -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per TfD. While I'm not a fan of userboxes, especially this one (see my sig), consensus indicates that they want it to stay. I would vote delete on a TfD but I wouldn't delete against the wishes of the community. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and block MarkSweep for repeated disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We don't need a mechanism by which editors with a pronounced anti-UN (or anti-anything) bias can contact one another and organise. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The purpose of these templates is to self-identify and show in a clear way what biases a user has, not to further an agenda or "contact one another and organise" (which I've always thought was a rather flimsy, and somewhat melodramatic and paranoid (and thus not assuming good faith), argument against userboxes; it will be rather obvious if anyone attempts to use userboxes to stuff votes or "cluster" and factionalize, so it will be (and has been) both very rare and pretty easy to prevent). We have "anti-racism" templates; are those equally inappropriate? Why is it perfectly fine to support the UN, but not to say that you don't support the UN—or any other major, global organization for that matter? Isn't it much more POVed to say "Wikipedians can only be positive of the UN" than it is to let people identify where they stand on the matter? Additionally, are you basing your vote on the speedy-deletion criterion and current Wikipedia userbox policies, and on careful analysis of the actual discussion preceding this out-of-process speedy-delete, or are you basing it on your personal opposition to anti-UN (or "anti-anything") sentiment? We have "anti-Marxist" userboxes that noone seems to object to. Is there anything really so wrong with an "anti-" opinion, as long as it's directed at a philosophy or organization or major public figure that is relevant to the POVs and beliefs of the Wikipedian? I don't see what the big deal is. There's little difference between the pro-side and the anti-side of a debate; it's merely a matter of terminology. Two sides of the same coin. Censoring one side and thus implicitly endorsing the other side is a bad practice that will get Wikipedia in more trouble than if it simply lets these things be. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Inappropriate; TfD is not strictly a vote; and most of the "keep" "votes" did not conform to TfD "voting"/discussion policy. Monicasdude 16:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Correct, "TfD is not strictly a vote"—it's a discussion. Noone made an argument for why the template should be speedy-deleted, and obviously many people disagree that this template qualifies as "divisive" and "inflammatory", so even if you feel personally that it is both divisive and inflammatory, the correct place to discuss those matters is on a TfD. The job of an admin who is closing a TfD vote is to interpret the discussion, not to voice his own opinion in complete, unilateral disregard for the entire discussion! If you're an admin and believe strongly that a template currently undergoing TfD discussion should be speedy-deleted, then the correct course of action is to vote, not to immediately speedy-delete it without any support whatsoever and without anyone having even brought up the matter of whether speedy-delete is applicable here (which it happens to not be, incidentally; this template is not strictly "inflammatory", it's quite courteous and inoffensive). Even if the TfD keep votes were accompanied by flawed reasoning, the correct response is to point out that flaw by responding to the votes, not to simply ignore them all! and assume that dozens of users are ignorant, irrelevant cattle and only your opinion is relevant, not anyone else's. All of this should be discussed in the TfD, and then it should be speedy-deleted if and only if the arguments for it end up being more markedly compelling than the arguments against it. TfD is not a vote, but it's also not a battle over which side has the most admins: it's. a. discussion. So let's discuss whether it qualifies for a speedy-delete (or a delete at all), not bully each other around with admin-privilege abuses. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted POV template. --Doc ^ask? 16:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is no current speedy-deletion criterion that says "all POV usertemplates should be speedy-deleted", thus your vote currently seems to rely on faulty logic that is based in personal opinion rather than interpretation of any policy; if this is not the case and you are alluding to some specific, approved policy that endorses speedy-deleting all POVed userboxes, I apologize. But that is not currently the case. Userboxes are used in userspace, not articlespace, and thus do not fall under the "NPOV" requirements (or the NOR requirements, for that matter, which would require the deletion of all userspace) for the same reason Usercategories (Category:Wikipedians) don't. You are trying to circumvent process in this case on a technicality, adhering to the letter rather than to the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn and Relist. This is not a review of the template, it's a review of the process, and it is absurdly clear that this deletion was very poorly-done: see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_Iraq_War_2 (and the Anti-UN vote, of course) for details. Not a single user had voted for "speedy delete", no one had brought up why and how it might be "divisive" or "inflammatory", there was at the time a consensus to keep, the discussion had barely just begun (with a whole week of time for people who felt the template merited deletion to discuss the matter), and even the people who voted "delete" did not vote "speedy". If those voters were mistaken or misinformed or unaware of the new deletion criterion, then the correct next step to take would be to vote and explain your view, arguing for speedy-delete and then waiting to see if your argument gains support or if valid counter-arguments are made—and there are certainly some very strong possible arguments one could make to demonstrate that "This user does not support the United Nations" is probably not all that divisive, and certainly not in any way inflammatory! It's practically stale, it's so impersonal! The new speedy-delete criterion was created for templates like "This user hates Jews" or "This user wants all Americans to die", not grey-area templates like "This user opposes the UN" (which was only created as a balance to "This user supports the UN", to appease NPOV and show that Wikipedia isn't exclusively for UN supporters!; if this template is 'divisive', than that one surely has to be equally divisive, unless it would be OK to say 'This user supports capital punishment' but not 'This user opposes capital punishment')! So, while it might possibly be applied to this template, certainly it's not such a clear-cut case that we can't even permit any discussion of the matter, but just have to shove all the dozens of dissenting opinions into the gutter without so much as a response, just with a dismissive "everyone else is wrong"! What on earth does that accomplish, sacrificing users' faith in the system and in Wikipedia's openness just to get a dinky little userbox deleted today rather than four days from now? Somewhat of a pyrrhic victory, even for those who hate all userboxes; process is only a means to an end, sure, but in this case ignoring process (and ignoring, not just all votes, but all discussion, in favor of immediate speedy-delete) is more damaging to the goals of Wikipedia than, as it can only serve to alienate and further divide and factionalize this community. For Wikigod's sake, let the TfD discussion run its course! What's so terrible and unacceptable about letting people talk this over? -Silence 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist Expressing a common POV in dispassionate language is not inflammatory, as I understand the meaning of that word. Saying "User opposes X", where X is the normal name of a major political entity or cause is always fine. Saying "User opposes Nazi, slimy, evil, X" is not. It's simple. This user emphatically supports the UN, incidentally. Xoloz 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist POV is not illegal, and speedying during a TfD is really annoying. If the discussion is going towards "delete" why not let it run? If it is going to "keep" then the speedying is completely inappropriate! Stop speedying everything!. There is no point of having a TfD discussion if people are just going to speedy things in the middle of it - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive, and now clarified as appropriate to speedy by the new criteria as per Jimbo's dictum. --Improv 18:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subjects. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This template neither criticizes nor disparages its subject. Read the contents: "This user does not support the United Nations." It's a statement of fact (the fact being what the user's opinion of the UN is) to make explicit a POV of the user in order, and is perfectly civil and entirely non-inflammatory. More importantly, even if you want it deleted, the speedy-delete was out of line and violated consensus and the TfD discussion, misinterpreted TfD policy (assuming that "inflammatory" simply means "not positive", which is obviously not the case), and contradicts common sense. If I wanted this template deleted, I'd vote to "undelete and relist" and then vote to "delete" at the relisted TfD; not even giving it a TfD discussion even though it's truly not an especially objectionable template (for god's sake, we gave "This user hates Jews" an entire week of in-depth discussion!) is clearly unacceptable. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. The Land 19:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• There are plenty of ways. They make explicit a POV of the user, allowing others to better understand that user's perspective and basic assumptions. They allow users to self-express their views in a constructive way that does not damage the encyclopedia, encouraging them to use their userpage to voice their opinions rather than using articles to voice their opinions (and push their POVs). They make it clear that Wikipedia does itself have a POV on these issues (a problem that arises from letting people have a "This user supports the UN" and forbidding them to have a "This user does not support the UN" template, implying that Wikipedia itself supports the UN and does not condone anti-UN (or even non-pro-UN, since the template's content says "doesn't support", not "opposes"!) sentiment). If the problem here is with POV templates, then both sides of the POV should be deleted, not just one; but even if that's so, it should be deleted through the TfD process, not through unilateral vigilante action in complete disregard for both consensus and discussion. This is about an improper, admin-privileges-abusing speedydelete that misinterpreted the meaning of the word "inflammatory", not about the userbox itself, which is what the TfD discussion is there for. Even if you personally think all userboxes should be deleted, or all anti-X templates should be deleted, that is not current Wikipedia policy, and voting based on that rather than on an interpretation of the vote, discussion, speedy-delete action, and current TfD policies is inappropriate. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why bother? "Consensus" is the biggest joke at wikipedia. Vote any way you want, discuss until the cows come home. If King Jimbo wants it gone, it's gone, and will stay gone, regardless of what anyone else thinks. --Kbdank71 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, not useful, carefully enumerating things you don't like, for no apparent reason, is effectively trolling, in that it's only plausible effect is to draw a negative response from others. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The problem here is that if there was a major global movement that strongly opposed the UN as its foundational message, let's say "Movement X", and we made a userbox saying "This user supports Movement X", an "only pro-X, no anti-X!" belief would cause you to let the userbox remain, and would make it impossible to in any way criticize Movement X ("This user doesn't support Movement X" would be deleted), even though Movement X would be essentially synonymous with "not supporting the UN". In other words, the only difference between pro-X and anti-X is terminological and semantic; speedy-deleting something just because it says "...doesn't support..." is absurd. Not supporting, or opposing, an organization can be just as significant and noteworthy. For example, "atheism" is defined in the negative; it is a movement that is inherently a lack of something. If we didn't have a word for "atheism" and just had to say "This user doesn't support God" or similar, would that suddenly change it from being appropriate to inappropriate? Entirely on a semantic basis? There shouldn't have to be a word or term for opposing something just to allow there to be a userbox; the basis should be whether the sentiment is noteworthy ("This user doesn't support his best friend Greg" wouldn't be a noteworthy enough view to bother with a general-use userbox), meaningful ("This user doesn't support parsley" wouldn't provide a meaningful enough distinction between users), and non-abusive ("This user doesn't support the UN because they're assholes" would be incivil and would qualify for 'inflammatory and divisive' deletion, unlike this template). There's simply no reason to speedy-delete this template, anymore than there is to do so for any other user-template; as such, even if it's deleted, it should not be speedy-deleted, or at least not speedy-deleted until that option has been discussed on TfD, with pros and cons being provided for both options. There's no justification for tossing aside TfD here, as there's obviously a significant enough dispute over whether this truly qualifies for speedy-deletion to permit a TfD discussion over that option, which is what was happening just fine, and should have continued to happen, and still should be permitted to happen. Otherwise, the entire VfD process is meaningless and arbitrary, the deletion criteria are a joke, and whether or not something is deleted is the result of a coin-flip, not of a reasoned, in-depth discussion. Sad. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ignore. The userbox war has spread to every corner of Wikipedia, and bogged down every process it's come near. I say wait until there is a workable consensus on the whole issue before deleting, undeleting, nominating, using, editing or even reading any userboxen. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is not about the userbox war. The situation would be the same for any template: speedy-deletion should not be a tool for admins to use to circumvent any meaningful discussion and avoid having to bother to try to convince anyone else that they're right when they know they already are; the discussion clearly did not indicate a "speedy-delete", and if the voters were misinformed or their discussion faulty, a counter-argument should have been made before the discussion was abruptly cut off. The same would be true for any template, article, category, or page at all. Discussion is helpful, not harmful. I agree with you that we should stop bothering with these ridiculous individual nominations until a policy exists for userboxes, but that doesn't mean we should let admins abuse the system to arbitrarily attack specific templates that have a strong consensus for "keep". This is about the TfD process, not about userboxes, as Deletion Review is a review of the deletion process, discussion, policies, etc. more than of the specific page that happened to be deleted. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-ACLU

This user does not support the ACLU.

This template was deleted despite an overwhelming number of the votes to keep (see here). What's more, after all votes were submitted, the Admin who started the deletion process, User:MarkSweep wrote, "The result of the debate was moot. This template was speedy deleted." An admin is implying that the process was irrelevant. I would like the deletion of this template to be reviewed and know if User:MarkSweep's conduct was appropriate for an admin.

• Comment I've userfied both boxes - see User:Userboxes/Anti-UN and User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU. Thus, CSD T1 no longer applies, but users who wish to either subst: or transclude this content may still do so. (See the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Use of userboxes). This was done in order to avoid the necessity for another lengthy debate rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Can we please avoid yet more tedious, repetitious discussions and get back to writing an encyclopedia? I'm getting sick and tired of this nonsense. Frankly, Wikipedia just isn't fun any more, and I'm not sure how much of my time I want to devote to a community divided by such petty squabbling. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore in the user namespace. I like Crotalus horridus' compromise. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV.--MONGO 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per TfD. While I'm not a fan of userboxes, especially this one (see my sig), consensus indicates that they want it to stay. I would vote delete on a TfD but I wouldn't delete against the wishes of the community. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and block MarkSweep for repeated disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We don't need a mechanism by which editors with a pronounced anti-ACLU (or anti-anything) bias can contact one another and organise. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inappropriate; TfD is not strictly a vote; and most of the "keep" "votes" did not conform to TfD "voting"/discussion policy. Monicasdude 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted POV template. --Doc ^ask? 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist Expressing a common POV in dispassionate language is not inflammatory, as I understand the meaning of that word. Saying "User opposes X", where X is the normal name of a major political entity or cause is always fine. Saying "User opposes Nazi, slimy, evil, X" is not. It's simple. By the way, I am a Guardian of Liberty with the ACLU (I've named them in my will), and I accept this as perfectly legitimate. Xoloz 17:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn and Relist. TfD is a discussion, not a vote; ergo, since the discussion was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping at the time, since just about none of the arguments of the keep-voters had yet been addressed, and since nobody in the entire discussion had at the time suggested a "speedy-delete" or argued for why the template might be both "inflammatory" and "divisive" (the latter, certainly, seems like a very, very big stretch, and an extremely loose interpretation of "inflammatory" that seems contradictory to Jimbo's comments and the purpose of the new speedy-deletion criterion), it was completely inappropriate to throw all of the discussion into the gutter without even taking the time to first recommend that it be speedy-deleted and see what counter-arguments people could supply, then decide whether to delete or not! This is clear abuse of process, and clearly will cause more harm to Wikipedia than if we simply let the TfD discussion run its course and didn't involve this whole other ridiculous extra level of bureaucracy and controversy just because some admins don't feel like bothering to talk to the lowly non-admins who voted before annihilating a template they personally dislike! If the template said "This user thinks that the ACLU is a scumsucking Satanspawn", the speedy would be understandable; but just not supporting an organization is not "inflammatory", and even the case that it's "divisive" is not as black-and-white as its being made out to be; grey-area templates like this are exactly what TfD discussions are for, so even if you think this template should be deleted, userfied, or whatever, you should still vote to overturn this deletion and let the template be given the proper amount of time. Otherwise, we just set up a precedent where any user-template that an admin dislikes can be speedied, without providing any argument whatsoever first and completely disregarding the entire vote and discussion, making it an utter waste of time to even bother to voice your opinion or argue for your interpretation of TfD policy; you'll just be ignored if any admin disagrees with you—that admin will simply override everyone's votes rather than providing a counter-argument. TfD will change from a discussion of templates to a "which side has the most admins to muscle the other side around"; that's not a good thing. Why stir up such a hornet's-nest of contentious, divisive disputes and edit-warring over such a ridiculous matter when we could simply let the discussion over a silly old colored rectangular box-o'-POV run its course, then decide what to do? The benefits of speedy-deletion do not, in this case, outweigh the harm it will cause. -Silence 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive, harmful to the project. Stop poisoning the well. --Improv 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. The Land 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per all the above. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

10 February 2006

Montfort Realschule Zell

This article's AfD nomination had 3 delete comments and just one keep (User:Jcuk's only comment was "of course"). If we were going straight vote style that gives 75% delete. After weighting arguments and comments I'd say the deletes have it. I respect MarkGallagher's decision to keep (the article did change a bit mid-vote) and normally I'd just let it go, but I just don't like this article (admitably I am deletionist scum). BrokenSegue 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why not just relist it? Four comments is hardly a good discussion. Alternatively, try WP:PROD. --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony. {{prod}} the sucker, and you might get lucky and have it go away on its own. If someone removes the prod tag and doesn't somehow improve it, relist it. --Aaron 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it really proper to prod an article after it was AfD'd? Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#What_this_process_is_NOT_for suggets that it isn't. BrokenSegue 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The whole prod thing is sort of "in beta", and is still under discussion, so "What this process is NOT for" is still just a proposal. As such, I don't think it will hurt anything to prod this article. They need to see how {{prod}} is going to actually be used anyway, not just how editors will use it in theory. --Aaron 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• However badly the article sucks you will never get rid of it, it's a verifiable school. I'd walk away. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your probably right. It's sad that it has come to this, some people will mechanicaly vote to keep all verifiable schools. *sigh* I added the prod tag just to see. BrokenSegue 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against Iraq War

This admin is deleting templates without a consensus for deletion and adding speedy delete tags to userboxes which are already under discussion. This has resulted in the speedy deletion of several userboxes. This is censorship and an abuse of admin power. It is vandalism, and I put up a notice on Vandalism in Progress about him, though it was removed. --Revolución (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• A recent example is Template:User against Iraq War, which was put up for TfD. Voting at time of Tony's deletion was 13 keep, 4 delete [1]. --Fang 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confused about the purpose and nature of WP:TFD. It is not a vote. It is a debate. You are encouraged to provide arguments that address the deletion criteria for templates set out on WP:TFD. The majority of the "keep" opinions failed to address the criteria and thus contributed nothing to the debate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I created that template. I have warned him several times. I do not know what to do, and since I do not have admin powers, I can not restore these templates. --Revolución (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I dare say this is a possible mis-use of admin permissions. I suggest perhaps the process for RfC should begin? ComputerJoe 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, if not a full-blown RfA. --Aaron 21:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've explained that Mark Sweep and I, both administrators, have been tagging and deleting some of the more inflammatory userbox templates under the T1 speedy criterion. It seems reasonable to me that if two administrators both arrive at a good faith determination that a template is clearly inflammatory and divisive, it's reasonable grounds for speedy deletion on the basis that, in Jimbo Wales' words, they are "bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please explain how "This user opposes the Iraq War and advocates an immediate troop withdrawal" qualifies as inflammatory. --Revolución (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It's needlessly divisive. It is entirely based on real-life politics that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. All it does is divide Wikipedians by opinions that are irrelevant and orthogonal to the purpose of Writing An Encyclopedia. Especially the "advocates" bit is a violation of WP:NOT:soapbox. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't. Just follow Tony's lead and IAR by making it again, both in a subst and a template. Karmafist 20:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I followed your advice and recreated the template. A few seconds later, it was instantly deleted. --Revolución (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • But not by me. Spooky, huh? --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Dismiss - DRV is not a place for mini RfCs. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Dismiss per Mr. Stewart. Summary deletion of templates is occasionally justified, per Jimbo. If one disagrees with a specific case, bring the case here. If Revolucion's description of the Iraq userbox is correct, I would be more inclined to overturn than I was in the case of "USA Police State." Xoloz 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The complaint has now changed to consider the template itself, not Mr. Sidaway. Undelete Allow TfD. Template is political, probably unwise, but not blatantly inflammatory. It deserves normal process. Xoloz 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the Iraq War template and allow full hearing at TfD. It is not "blantantly inflamatory", as evidenced by several good-faith keep votes before the TfD was interrupted. Thryduulf 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Uphold deletion. The template is divisive and unsuitable content for a userpage. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, nor a free webspace provider. Physchim62 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete IMMEDIATELY No consensus was reached upon the deletion. If administrators will continue to implement a "delete first, think later" policy, Wikipedia will indeed resemble a police state. I refuse to acknowledge "Jimbo said so" as a valid argument for deletion. Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, but WE are the community. WE build the encyclopedia, so WE decide. Vargher 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Stirring words from an editor with precisely five article edits and seven talk page comments in three weeks. In the same time, Mr Vargher has accomplished over sixty edits to his own user page. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. It is beyond obvious these admins are falsely claiming "speedy delete" because they're overwhelmingly losing the discussions. --Aaron 21:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I can see no reasonable connection between this template and our goal of writing an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TFD. Many user templates have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, that isn't a reason to speedy it. --Kbdank71 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nominator's apparent personal crusade against Tony Sidaway is growing tiresome. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't personal. This is about abuse of admin power. --Revolución (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See this. But enough here; please continue this at my talk if you wish to. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. We were forming a concensus about this template when Tony deleted it. Let the TfD process go forward. --Fang Aili 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Voting in a vacuum I'd support this without having to see the content. The title itself is clearly divisive, presenting an obvious POV without telling others "I can help you based on my expertise." But I must say... admins should remember how much it sucks for a non-admin to see admins making sudden decisions out of process. It seems TonyS deleted this, and I have voted in favour of his deletions here, but I do want to emphasize how annoying it is when fD gets ignored because some admin was "in that mood." It really does suck. You vote yay or nay on some fD page (or maybe you're just watching) and then you realize an admin can speedy and haul it over here (where, largely, only admins comment) regardless of any emerging consensus on the relevant fD page. Thus, I don't think I support Revolucion's ideas here, but I see his frustration. Marskell 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The concensus apparently reached was "speedy delete". However, looking through the discussion, nobody had suggested a speedy deletion, and that the huge majority of people voted keep. If this is going to happen all the time, why dont we just abolish discussions? - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's coming, Dussst. Mark my words; it's only a matter of time. --Aaron 22:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted when discussions go directly against policy then admins have the responsibility to follow the policy even if that is out of process - process is to support policy not create an environment to individually ignore/overturn policy when it suits a specific group of users. Trödel•talk 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and RFC the admins responsible what is the point of having a Tfd process if admins just arbitrarily delete templates they happen to dislike Cynical 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted TfD is broken. Speedies are exceptional deletion criteria that do not require to establish consensus. --Doc ^ask? 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't go there. Wait until the userbox debate is finished, then consider them all en bloc. This whole busienss is taking over the entire project. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've created the template in my own userspace. The fascists here will probably try to censor it again, but I won't let them. --Revolución (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Vargher Mike McGregor (Can) 23:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire, as per Vargher. Five article edits and 60 user page edits illustrate his misconceptions: Wikipedia is NOT a blog, free hosting service, or billboard for promoting one's personal beliefs. MySpace and Blogspot are that-a-way if that's what he wants; this place is supposed to be a freaking encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone's in the dark. The entire WP:UBX project is littered with personal beliefs! Just look at the Politics and Beliefs section, with userboxes advocating Taiwan independence and various other little things. Userboxes are the expression of our personal beliefs, and have caught on like wildifre on many user pages. Clearly the "this is an encyclopeida" is moot, as is the personal attack against the user in question. - Hbdragon88 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone's in the dark. True -- but it's not me. Check out User:Vargher's contributions: compare all edits with article edits: Time and edits enough to create/install 79 or so user boxes, and only enough time for 5 article edits. Do you understand the point, or are diagrams required?
    • The entire WP:UBX project is littered with personal beliefs! I need to ask: did the "Mom! [my brother/my sister/the next-door-neighbor's kid] does it!" rationale work when you were a child? No? Why should it work now? --Calton | Talk 06:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The sheer number of userboxes on UBX shows that userboxes are here to stay and that they are being used as a medium to express opinions. You wrote that Wikipedia is not a "billboard for promoting one's personal beliefs." The userboxes project proves otherwise. Don't throw the "They do it!" argument at me. - Hbdragon88 21:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid deletion per CSD T.1. Ignore all opinions here based on out-of-process arguments such as "censorship" or "free speech". --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Ban MarkSweep, Tony Sidaway, and Parham permanently for engaging in continued disruption via edit war, right-wing POV-pimping, vandalism and WP:POINT violations. And by the way, Stormfront is that-a-way. --Daniel 02:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  It's not right wing pv pimping... he has gone after boxes that the right would support as well. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  If "he" in this instance refers to me, my political compass readings are as follows:

  Economic Left/Right: -8.75

  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

  The accusations of edit warring, vandalism and whatnot are equally fatuous. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn. I do not agree with the message, but I will fight for the right to say it. IMHO I think speedy is beng abused by admins who can't get consensus. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong, Emphatic Overturn - The constant speedy deletion and vandalism of userboxes bya small number of admins has got to stop, and it has to stop immediately. This template must be restored and an RfC started. This is getting to the point, or perhaps beyond the point, of de-adminship for trolling and incessant WP:POINT violations. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all user boxes which disparage or criticize their subject. Needlessly divisive and inflammatory. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted the deletion of this template WAS disruption of Wikipedia, however this userbox sucks and I almost deleted it myself when I saw it on TfD.  Grue  07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion This is hilarious. 1) I'm one of the ones who should feel inflamed and felt cut off from his fellow wikipedian by this "inflammatory and divisive" template because I totally disagree with it. The only thing is...I'M NOT! I enjoy hearing a opposite point of view and respect those who have them. I wish people would stop chicken-littling that wikipedia is going to end if people have POV's on their user pages. Edit wars don't start over that, they start over what's in ARTICLES. 2) Although I personally think free speech is a good enough reason to keep, I'm one of the few people who posted what I think are "wikipedia project-related" reasons why these templates are good, which User:MarkSweep "swept under the rug" by not responding. I said, "this template lets users know you have a strong personal opinion regarding a subject, that you may be interested in editing articles related to it, and may be source of information regarding what adherents to that opinion believe." 3) I say deleting these templates is moot because it's just a big exercise in masturbation. Your big reason for deleting them is that you don't want "divisive, inflammatory POV" on userpages? Well, if you delete them, people will just use the raw code (or prose!) to recreate them on their userpages. What then? Lawyer2b 07:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I can't help but chuckle. Those Admins who want all these "nasty POV Templates" deleted to keep the wikicommunity together coudln't have created more bitterness and division with their actions if they tried. Pray tell gentlemen...will the beatings continue until morale improves? Lawyer2b 08:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore in the user namespace. (Second choice: Keep deleted.) I like Crotalus horridus' compromise that was used in some of the other DRV debates. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV.--MONGO 10:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete.helohe (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted POV template. --Doc ^ask? 16:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn and Relist. This is not a review of the template, it's a review of the process; TfD is for discussion of whether templates should be deleted, and Deletion Review is for reviewing whether the deletion was merited at that point of time or not, not as a way to hide TfD revotes from the majority of voters whenever an admin gets frisky. It is absurdly clear that this deletion was very poorly-done: see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_Iraq_War_2 for details. Not a single user had voted for "speedy delete", no one had brought up why and how it might be "divisive" or "inflammatory", there was a large consensus to keep, and even the people who voted "delete" did not vote "speedy". If those voters were mistaken or misinformed or unaware of the , then the correct next step to take would be to vote and explain your view, arguing for speedy-delete and then waiting to see if your argument gains support. It is not to take abrupt and callously dismissive unilateral action, which has infinitely more potential to be divisive and offensive to the majority of users than some dinky little userbox ever could. What's going to drive valuable editors away is abuse of process like this and admins' apathy to it (as demonstrated by the number of "endorse" votes here), not ridiculous brightly-colored rectangles. Even if you believe this should be deleted (in fact, I personally wouldn't really mind such an outcome, after the TfD runs its course!), you should vote to overturn this so it can be given its proper length of time; if you believe it to be divisive and inflammatory (which a large number of people clearly do not, so this speedy-delete is disputed and merits a full vote!), then explain why. Whatever happened to these things being discussions rather than votes? Instead, it seems now that they're neither: both the votes themselves and the contents of the TfD are being completely disregarded simply because an admin disagrees with them (but apparently doesn't have enough respect for any of the voters to reply to their points and form a counter-argument, rather than using force to silence them). Pointless, controversial speedy-deletes like this are making the entire TfD process look like a silly little diversion for non-admins to waste their time on while admins just speedy-del whatever the hell they feel like rather than voting or commenting. It's contributing much more to the increasingly hostile, aggressive, and intolerant atmosphere around here than the userboxes themselves are! -Silence 16:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive, this is not the place. --Improv 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. Furthermore, people who go round calling their opponents 'fascists' in this sort of debate do nothing to help their own cause. The Land 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User USA Police State

Taxman (talk · contribs) deleted it without a consensus. If I counted right, there are 29 keep votes and 18 delete votes (correct me if I missed some for either keep or delete). --Revolución (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• As an ardent opponent of this twit person, I do fear my country may become a police-state, but this template is clearly inflammatory. Summary deletion is appropriate, and I endorse it. (Note that I have no opinion on userboxes generally, working case-by-case.) Xoloz 19:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Just recreate it. Only this time make a subst and a template. If certain people want to ignore rules, it's only a matter of time before everybody does. Karmafist 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously, what do you think that is going to help? - Taxman ^Talk 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Actually I restored it upon seeing the discussion. I stand by it clearly meeting the speedy deletion criteria, but more importantly, it having no positive value for Wikipedia. - Taxman ^Talk 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I see that this is also one of my speedies. Both MarkSweep and I tagged it at various times, and Taxman and I deleted it at different times. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Uphold deletion. The template is divisive and unsuitable content for a userpage. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, nor a free webspace provider. Physchim62 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete IMMEDIATELY No consensus was reached upon the deletion. If administrators will continue to implement a "delete first, think later" policy, Wikipedia will indeed resemble a police state. I refuse to acknowledge "Jimbo said so" as a valid argument for deletion. Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, but WE are the community. WE build the encyclopedia, so WE decide. Vargher 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I can see no reasonable connection between this template and our goal of writing an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, don't think think this is irrelevent? The question here is if the template was deleted correctly, and if not, whether it should be relisted. This template is one of many on the Userboxes project. The entire project could be considered to be irrelevent to writing an encyclopeida. The point I'm trying to make is that the relevence discussion and questions should be pointed there, not on a Deletion Review. - Hbdragon88 04:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TFD. Many user templates have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, that isn't a reason to speedy it. --Kbdank71 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But the speedy deletion criteria are a reason to delete it. - Taxman ^Talk 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: useless dreck. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Horrible nonsense. What is Wikipedia coming to when we need to debate whether to bin trash like this? --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Because that same argument could be used to, I don't know, close this very discussion right now as "Relist", or even "undelete". It causes wheel-wars. If that's what Wikipedia is coming to, you can have it. There are processes for a reason. Last I checked, it was King Jimbo, not King Taxman or King Tony. --Kbdank71 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Not very convincing. The template was complete dreck. It has to die; if TfD cannot do it then we speedy under T1. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • So in other words you admit that you are deliberately ignoring the Tfd just because you happen to disagree with the outcome? Cynical 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • No, there's a speedy deletion criteria that covers this. Speedy deletion trumps afd and tfd. - Taxman ^Talk 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
          • The CSD was created by rule of dictator, not by consensus. Also, it is a relatively new criterion, and it is recommended that it be used with caution, not whenever an admin feels like it. But still, it's convienent, is it not? Helps to support unilateral deletion sprees of any content any admin may find objectional. Sigh. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. We were forming a concensus about this template when Taxman deleted it. Let the TfD process go forward. --Fang Aili 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete There was no concensus met, and the discussion was going towards "keep" anyway! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The substantive debate was going towards "delete". Just because some people "voted to keep" doesn't change the fact that WP:TFD is a debate, in which participants are encouraged to put forth reasoned arguments. In fact, the instructions specifically state: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." If you choose not to participate in this debate by writing "Strong KEEP" followed by an irrelevant argument which does not address the template deletion criteria, that's entirely up to you. But don't misrepresent a bunch of irrelevant opinions as "consensus", just because they happen to include the word "keep" in boldface. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Just you think someone's argument is irrelevant, doesnt mean it is. Many of the arguments put forward good points to keeping the userbox. Either way, speedying a template during a discussion is a really stupid and annoying thing to do, I just dont see what the point it. There is a reason why we have discussions, so why delete things half way through so people can no longer vote because they cannot see it? - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony Sidaway Trödel•talk 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Dussst. This war will never end as long as admins continue to act arbitrarily. --Aaron 22:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not arbitrary when there is a specific policy that calls for doing exactly what was done. - Taxman ^Talk 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, you mean that policy that didn't exist until well after the war began? --Aaron 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • This war will never end as long as there are users who keep mistake Wikipedia for a blog, free hosting service, or billboard for promoting their personal beliefs. MySpace and Blogspot are that-a-way if that's what they want; this place is supposed to be a freaking encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, it's only effects will be divisive and inflammatory. And by the way, "Jimmy said so" is a valid argument. Rx StrangeLove 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Undelete as per VargheMike McGregor (Can) 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete immediately. You want to prove the USA is a police state, I guess you've already got exhibit A (e.g., a good portion of its citizens can't bear to hear anything from dissenters). Daniel 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To steal from Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right, that's not even wrong." A website having and enforcing standards is evidence of a police state? Do you even know the meaning of the term? --Calton | Talk 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T.1. Ignore all out-of-process opinions based on personal animosity, "censorship", etc. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Expedient undelete. Template was deleted out of process despite ongoing discussion on TFD. Also recommend slapping Tony with a large whale. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This comment is inappropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Delete. No explanation...just inflamatory remarks (AKA "trolling"). WP:IAR.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. IMHO I think speedy is beng abused by admins who can't get consensus. It may or may not be a police state, but a police wiki is in formation. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I feel that this one should be deleted, but it was far, far from consensus. Speedy deletion is not a toy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia. Inflammatory or divisive templates have no place here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I support userboxes in general, but this is just lame.  Grue  06:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion This is hilarious. 1) I'm one of the ones who should inflamed and felt cut off from his fellow wikipedian by this "inflammatory and divisive" template because I totally disagree with it. The only thing is...I'M NOT! I enjoy hearing a opposite point of view and respect those who have them. I wish people would stop chicken-littling that wikipedia is going to end if people have POV's on their user pages. Edit wars don't start over that, they start over what's in ARTICLES. 2) Although I personally think free speech is a good enough reason to keep, I'm one of the few people who posted what I think are "wikipedia project-related" reasons why these templates are good, which User:MarkSweep "swept under the rug" by not responding. I said, "this template lets users know you have a strong personal opinion regarding a subject, that you may be interested in editing articles related to it, and may be source of information regarding what adherents to that opinion believe." 3) I say deleting these templates is moot because it's just a big exercise in masturbation. Your big reason for deleting them is that you don't want "divisive, inflammatory POV" on userpages? Well, if you delete them, people will just use the raw code (or prose!) to recreate them on their userpages. What then? Lawyer2b 07:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I can't help but chuckle. Those Admins who want all these "nasty POV Templates" deleted to keep the wikicommunity together coudln't have created more bitterness and division in it with their actions if they tried. Pray tell gentlemen...will the beatings continue until morale improves? Lawyer2b 08:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore in the user namespace. (Second choice: Keep deleted.) I like Crotalus horridus' compromise that was used in some of the other DRV debates. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV. Prove neutrality through excellent editing and userpages should not be little playgrounds to erect billboards that are clear violations of the NPOV.--MONGO 10:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. And undelete. helohe (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not the place, divisive. --Improv 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. The Land 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hootenanny (store)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hootenanny (store). 6 delete, 5 merge and or keep votes. Closing admin seems to think that votes he disagrees with can be discounted because "AFD is a debate, not a vote". He also overlooked the argument that it has a notable corporate parent, so he can't have examined the debate very closely. Kappa 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your local Wal-Mart has a notable corporate parent. That doesn't make it notable. It doesn't even make it worthy of being merged; what place would information on that particular store have in the article? Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So as a closing admin you are just ignoring all the votes which have reaons you disagree with? Kappa 13:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're working your way up to a spray about how admins should only count votes and not exercise their judgement, I'm going to cry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Please try to remember that wikipedia discussions should be conducted in a civil tone. Kappa 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Threatening to cry is incivil? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
          • No, but making someone and then slapping them with fish in the face (obscure reference) is. ComputerJoe 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• He's absolutely right that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and the tally is irrelevant. I also agree that having a notable corporate parent doesn't necessarily mean anything. That said, looking at both Newman Comics and the deleted article, it does look like an excellent merge candidate. A lot of the info in the deleted article is already in its corporate parent's article, so frankly a redirect would probably have done nicely. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop someone creating a redirect right now. Endorse close, no reason given for keeping this.--Doc ^ask? 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Endorse close, we want to get to a million articles, but not like this. Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse status quo, which is currently merge and redirect by the looks of it, since I don't actually care that much what went on given that the result is a decent-sized article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The status quo is redirected with the history deleted. Kappa 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse status quo. -- Jonel | Speak 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse closing Closing editor's action fine. A borderline-nn. Somebody has to do the closing on these borderline-nn. We're not drowning kittens! --FloNight 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, but you are destroying information people care about. Kappa 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not as such, no. Looking at the deleted history, there is very little there. There might be a small amount of trivia missing from the main article, but arguably it is not Wikipedia's place to list the brands stocked by a local store, especially since that might change at any time. Do we list all the brands sold out of Macy's? If anyone actually does care that much I will get the additional text out of the deleted history for them, but in my view it's too crufty to be worth the effort. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I was specifically promised some kitten drowning when I signed up. --Aaron 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Like Kappa, I found the AfD to be less than well closed. The case for merging was made and supported, but in the tiresome inclusionist-deletionist catfight, the keepers and deleters failed to raise any serious grounds against the suggestion. Closing admins have a responsibility to find the outcome that best fits the discussion, and there's a fine line between doing this and finding an interpretation of the AfD that best fits one's own opinion. Johnleemk may understand that, but this exceptional closing does not provide evidence of it. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  Undelete per Kappa. The nomination was little more than a display of aggressive ignorance; the nominator used the same justification to nominate a well-known and well-established specialty retailer (SFFH bookstore) for deletion, claiming there were "two dozen" like it in his neighborhood. The discussion there [[2]] shows pretty clearly that the nominator didn't know what a specialty retailer was, and should have led the closing admin to discount his "vote" (and the "votes" that simply cited the nominator). Note also that the nominator, in that discussion, used the fact that he'd never heard of many of the notable authors who were associated with the retailer as support for his claim. Wikipedia should be guided by the knowledge of its editors, not the ignorance of its editors. I don't know whether this particular specialty retailer is Wikipedia-notable, but the parent business certainly is, and has something of a track record for creating distinctive/notable enterprises. Monicasdude 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete the history The closure was not perfectly in-process, but a redirect/merge is a satisfactory result as far as content-merit is concerned. Let the history be complete, however, as this does no harm, and satisfies those with a process grievance. Xoloz 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As it's a non-controversial article and is already a redirect, I undeleted the history (which probably should not have been deleted). --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per FloNight. --Kbdank71 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep redirected. No real need to undelete history, as there's hardly anything to undelete, though there's no harm in undeleting it either. The original closer maybe should have done the redirect himself, but there was certainly no call for a flat out keep. I don't think anyone takes Kurt Weber's comments in AFDs seriously (at least I hope they don't), and no one else gave a single reason for keeping it. -R. fiend 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete history - since it is harmless. Despite my reservations about the close, I am happy with the status quo. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete or just Recreate at will and back up off site after recurrent redeletions: You want the breakdown of policy, you've got it. This page is full of examples, this article being one of them. Karmafist 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Karmafist. --Aaron 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Template was listed on TFD and closed on February tenth as NO CONSENSUS by User:Splash. However, User:Tony Sidaway saw fit to delete it as T1 after this decision was made. I recommend that this template be undeleted. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - Agreed. Speedy deletion is not a toy, especially after a decision has already been made (or not made). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia. Needlessly inflammatory/divisive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Mostly harmless. User:Adrian/zap2.js 06:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I don't see how this is a T1. NSLE _(T+C) 06:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Bky1701 06:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete deleting stuff without consensus is disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  07:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as CSD T.1 (divisive). If the "us against them" mentality expressed by this template isn't divisive, I don't know what is. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  Surely, this template divides normal users and admins who follow policy from admins who don't follow policy. I think almost everyone agrees that the second group should be ideally empty. In a sense this userbox restates Wikipedia policy that admins abusing their powers are a bad thing. Wikipedia:Administrators tells the same thing! Do you propose deleting it as well?  Grue  07:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  Moreso, if someone finds this template offensive I recommend them to voluntarily step down, so the template doesn't apply to them anymore. This will help us to write a better encyclopedia.  Grue  11:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Although I can certainly see User:MarkSweep has a dog in this fight. Lawyer2b 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A definitive abuse of template space. --Tony Sidaway 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This template does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 10:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. More borderline than some. However, ultimately it's not helping write a better encyclopedia. If you have issues with an administrator I strongly recommend raising it with them, or on the relevant noticeboards, or through an RfC/RfAr process. A 'I am pissed off' template does nothing but raise the remperature of the encyclopedia. The Land 19:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

9 February 2006

User:SPUI

I totally disagree with deleting this user page. Reverting and protection would have done just as well. I would like to request that this be undeleted, reverted to a satisfactory revision and protected. As I know that SPUI was definitely violating WP:POINT I won't reverse the decision, but I do think that we should not just delete the page arbitrarily. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• It appears this just got undeleted, by both Phroziac and Haukurth. Ral315 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can live with that since it's protected. On the deletion, I really appreciate the excellent work SPUI has done, but I don't think we should continue to give him a platform for trolling. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• SPUI's version made me laugh, but I have to agree it doesn't have much to do with building an encyclopaedia. I see it more as satire than trolling, though. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore to creator's preferred version, unprotect as the creator is not an admin, go sort some stubs as punishment for getting so worked up over this. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:28, Feb. 9, 2006

  I'm not particular about the version. I put a duck up there as an attempt at compromise but I'm not wedded to it being a duck-only page :) Stub-sorting is pointless—but extremely efficient and well organized—busywork ;) - Haukur 15:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore last version by SPUI. It's satire, not trolling; and though it may be making a point, it isn't disrupting Wikipedia. (Unless, say, Tony comes in and chooses to disrupt Wikipedia over it.) // paroxysm (n) 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto on Paroxysm: Has Wikipedia gone insane? Karmafist 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, with the difference that the paedophile userboxes must not be there. They are unacceptable. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and unprotect. I'm undecided if we should allow the pedophile things there, but I am tending to a yes. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per Paroxysm. --Aaron 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore to creator's preferred version - that is what userpages are for. If individual templates (e.g. the paedophile userbox Sam Korn mentioned), then delete the templates using the proper process, not the pages using them Cynical 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope no-one considers it even slightly acceptable to create any userboxes, templatised or hard-coded, in jest or in seriousness, claiming to be a paedophile. If they do, they have another, possibly quite long, think coming. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restory - It's ridiculous to delete someone's user page and then tell them they can't recreate it!!!! --Cyde Weys 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per paroxysm. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. :> Splash^talk 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Now why didn't I think of that? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is brilliant, Splash. Userfy per Spash. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

8 Feb 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was restored per request of Thryduulf by Physchim62. Aaron 22:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

This was spedily deleted by Physchim62 as "G7 (author requested deletion)" (emphasis orginal). However, even though the author did request deletion it is not eligable for speedy deletion under this criterion:

Criterion G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." (emphasis mine).

The page was not mistakenly created, as evidenced by all the previous discussion. In addition to its author (Herostratus), it has also been edited by Dschor, Zoe, and user:DanielCD in its current location and Paroxysm, Silent War and Jelligraze in its original location [3] (move was a copy and paste that I was going to repair later this evening when I had time).

If there was a clear consensus to delete then I would not be worried by the breach of process, but when it was closed there were 8 votes to delete and to 6 keep (plus stuck out votes and no votes) with strong arguments on both sides - clearly no consensus. I am not asking for permanent undeletion but I am asking for a full hearing at MfD, rather than the ~16 hours it did get. Thryduulf 18:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor was editing in violation of an ArbCom injunction (see CSD G5); Zoe merely added an MfD tag, which does not cont as an edit for the purposes of CSD G7; DanielCD merely removed his name from the participants list in accordance with his stated intention of ceasing to edit on pedophilia-related issues. I wasn't aware that this was a cut-and-paste move, but G7 does appear to apply. The author of the page requested deletion in the light of current events and has removed his name from the participants list. If other users wish to create a WikiProject Pedophilia (as has existed in the past on Wikipedia, before this project), I would not consider this a recreation of deleted material. However I think that the wishes of the page author should be respected in this case, especially given the current tensions surrounding the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy and let the MfD play itself out. As noted, this was a cut-and-paste move so not all the authors can be seen. I'm sympathetic to the fact that this WikiProject and its members knew nothing about the wheel war, and I suspect this WikiProject wouldn't have been involved at all if it wasn't for Dschor signing up for it and creating the userbox template for this WikiProject. However, the damage is likely already done: the main participants in the project have decided to leave because they don't want to be involved. --Deathphoenix 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and allow process. Considering changing my vote on the MfD. The Land 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restored as per request. Physchim62 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

7 Feb 2006

Brian Peppers

Was deleted and protected by User:UninvitedCompany despite the previous failure to remove via AFD. Uninvited's reasoning was as follows: "I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure." (See Talk:Brian_Peppers.) While I am certain that Uninvited was acting in good faith, I fear that it sets a dubious precedent to allow articles to be deleted because the article subject, or representatives of the subject, complained. If the information is uncited, it should of course be removed; if evidence is shown that it is libelous, it should also be removed. However, there's no evidence any of this was the case here. The mugshot is a public record, accessible to anyone, and is available through many websites other than Wikipedia, so removing it from here in no way even increases the subject's privacy. And this particular individual has been widely discussed on the Internet. Although Uninvited says that "privacy laws" may outlaw the publishing of this photo, no specific law was cited, and I find it difficult to believe that any law prohibiting the publication of crime-related information (like this mugshot) would withstand constitutional scrutiny. AFAIK, even laws prohibiting the publication of rape victims' names have been struck down. I suggest that this deletion be reconsidered. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted (in the strongest terms possible). The last AfD followed several successful AfD deletions and recreations. It was my opinion at the time that the article should never be allowed to be created, and I was utterly shocked at some people's lack of appreciation of how unencyclopedic the article was. The article was recreated and kept through an AfD, in my strong opinion, due to recreation/AfD gaming; it should die a permanent death. --Nlu (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and plow a ton of salt under - There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this person, and the content of the article was essentially "ha ha look at this guy he's funny-looking and he's a sex offender, OMGWTFBBQ LOLLERSKATES." It's a juvenile and pathetic attack page. Beyond that, this is a case where the potential harm to the encyclopedia, as expressed by UninvitedCompany, far outweighs the infinitesimal "contribution" made by the article to the "sum total of human knowledge." FCYTravis 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak and reluctant overturn (and relist, if you could stomach a 6th nomination). The last time this was AfDed (for the 5th time), it was no consensus (which, while grounds for a keep, still means that there's some serious doubts about whether it should be kept), and I voted Keep because I felt it was a notable Internet meme and the article text at the 5th nomination wasn't a copyvio, nor was it a recreation of what was previously deleted. I feel that the article as written violated no privacy laws as it made use of information already available to the public and contained nothing that could lead the anything dangerous happening to the subject. It does not contain a photo of said individual, nor does it contain any problematic details such as the offender's contact details. However, this article is just a wheel war waiting to happen. Uninvited Company likely deleted this for a very good reason. If UC will bring some good reasons to this discussion (such as, say, the family's lawyer calling with a cease and desist), I'll likely change my vote. OTOH, if it was just family members calling and saying that they don't like the article, I probably won't. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Fair enough, good arguments for this. --Deathphoenix 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• If there is a legal issue here, it should certainly be addressed, though I have my doubts that there is, or it would likely affect hundreds of other somewhat similar articles. Does the wikimedia foundation have a lawyer who could straighten this out? Absent anything else, I'd have to go along with undeletion. While I'm certainly no fan of it, and likely would have voted to delete it at the AFD, there does seem to be a weak consensus to keep it. -R. fiend 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Lest anyone should have counted that as a vote to undelete, it no longer is. My only concerns were respecting consensus, so I do not want to stand in the way of a better consensus being formed here. -R. fiend 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• If the guy looked like an average Joe we would not even be having this conversation; those who want to look up this puerile fad can do so elsewhere. Ask yourself: WWJD? Keep deleted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have voted (an extremely reluctant) keep in AfD debates for this article on the grounds that the internet fad was just about notable enough. However, assuming that UninvitedCompany is acting honourably (which I am certain he was) then the deletion should stand. Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• I also voted keep in the last AfD. I do question the extent to which privacy laws protect against the dissemination of photographs taken from a public sex-offender registry. In at least some jurisdictions, dissemination of such information is specifically exempted from privacy laws. Nevertheless, taking Uninvited Company at his word, with sympathy for Mr. Peppers, I'll vote Keep Deleted here. Xoloz 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Unless you can argue that there is a legal issue, it was wrongfully deleted. It should be undeleted, and you can then continue the discussion in AFD. It is silly to argue the articles merits, when the majority of us cannot see it. Jonatan 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I am somewhat reluctant since I did talk to UninvitedCompany and he claimed there was too much on the Wikipedia legal back burner and this needed to be done. But it seems more appropriate for us to have a AFD, especially considering all of the information present in the article was accurate and sourced. I do not feel it serves as a juvenile attack page. If anything, it serves to prevent such things from occuring by providing accurate facts about the man.--Aleron235 22:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Another AFD would be utterly pointless and get nobody anywhere in particular. The article has already gone through, what, six of them, five of which were delete and the sixth no-consensus? FCYTravis 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, unless the Wikimedia lawyers actually believe it to be a problem, in which case we should remove the possibly illegal portions. SNOPES has a fucking article on it - the legal argument is dubious at best. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I have no reason to doubt User:UninvitedCompany's statement that the deletion was by family request, and it has historically been our stance that their privacy concern takes precedence over a minor article. Observing basic courtesy enhances the project and enables us to move on with self respect to create a better encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  Are you proposing we set a precedent to delete all pages (even if factually accurate) on a questionable public figure if someone e-mails Wikipedia claiming to be a family member of the subject of the article? Sounds like a new way for trolls to get articles deleted off Wikipedia. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of like-pages that this could be done for. VegaDark 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think it would be a precedent. I'm sure we've pulled articles like this on request through OTRS--I may well have deleted one or two in this way myself. We're not robots, so it's unlikely that trolls would have much success using complaints as a tactic to get rid of good articles with which they have no personal connections. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  Yet the trolls seem to be having success here. As pointed out elsewhere, someone has recently been going around claiming to be a relative of Brian Peppers, which has then turned out to be a hoax. So Occam's Razor suggests that this request is bogus as well. Turnstep 12:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, as deletion policy does not trump privacy law, and there is a dubious argument for this person being a "public person" according to the legal definition (IANAL, though.) However, it would be nice for UninvitedCompany to tell us more of the background of this issue, if ethically possible. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, par Jonatan. --Bky1701 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is an excellent reason this page should remain deleted. It is this: I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[4] See also [5]. Regards ENCEPHALON 23:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, both per Tony and because I endorse UninvitedCompany's judgment on this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Its resurrection after it had been deleted four times already was bad enough already. Pilatus 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the first delete was valid, but the next two were G4 speedies, not AFDs. It was later returned to AFD quite properly through a valid DRV, and its consequent vote was a sizeable majority for keep (far from a "close but no-consensus" vote, which I would have balked at overriding an earlier delete consensus). I'm ambivalent about this, and I would like something made clear before I make a final decision here: are we looking at keeping it deleted for legal reasons or as a courtesy? -R. fiend 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pleased to see this go because this kind of stuff has the power to bring the project in disrepute. The article should never have been re-created. As I see it, you can defend obscenity in the name of an encyclopedia but not discourtesy. Pilatus gets of his soapbox now. Pilatus 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Thank-you UninvitedCompany! --FloNight 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and keep protected from recreation. This person did not choose to become a public figure. Privacy requests are entirely reasonable and should be honored in such cases. Also keep deleted for all the reasons I (and others) presented in the prior discussions. There's just no encyclopedia article here - not in the latest version nor in any prior version. Rossami (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article was sourced and verifiable - he has an entry on Snopes. I think assuming good faith is fine in principle, but not when it comes to deleting an article that survived an AfD. How does UninvitedCompany know the person he spoke to was truly a family member? Even if so, why should that have any effect on us making a NPOV encylopedia? I seem to recall that recently some congressional staffers were caught removing text from articles on members of Congress that, while objectively true, presumably the Congresspeople did not want on the page. Should we extend a courtesy to them if they call an admin and ask that the material be deleted from the page? This page should either meet our guidelines, or it does not. And the previous AfD seems to indicate that it does meet our guidelines. Since I did not see the article show up here on DR, I an only assume that nobody felt strongly that the AfD was conducted improperly. Therefore, undelete. Raise an objection on the talk page, start another AfD with new information, but do not speedy delete. Turnstep 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete if snopes keeps an article on him with no fear of lawsuit, we can too. The meme has turned him into a public figure. Meme notwithstanding... he is still a public figure due to listings on a public sex offender registry. This should never have been given 5 afd's in such a short period, that smacks of WP:POINT. Overturn and cleanup drastically.  ALKIVAR™ 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Being on a sex offender registry does not necessarily make someone a public figure. "A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status. Typically, they must either be: a public figure, pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted." There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Peppers would ever be ruled even a limited purpose public figure. Having a bunch of morons post your picture on forums does not make you an involuntary public figure, either. FCYTravis 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete. The last revision I saw wasn't derogatory at all, but simply listing undisputable facts. This survived it's last AfD with a 44-21 vote in favor to keep, showing that the majority of people who voted feel this article should stay on Wikipedia. "Brian Peppers" gets 154,000 Google hits. As far as I know that qualifies as being notable, and thus qualifies him to have a Wikipedia article. Also, there used to be mainstream news links relating to this, but were deleted. This could probably be found on the web archive if one looked hard enough. This person was newsworthy after the meme came about. Preferably I'd like this reviewed by Jimbo and/or the board but until that happens I have to say that Wikipedia must include this article if we want our enycylopedia to be the best it can be. We have an article on Henry Earl whom is no more notable than Brian peppers. VegaDark 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Mr. Earl appears to have participated in his own fame, becoming at least a limited purpose public figure by virtue of his (obviously voluntary) appearances on talk shows and news channels. That is not the case for Mr. Peppers, who has never appeared on television, has never given an interview, and whose "fame" is entirely related to asshats posting his picture on the Internet and laughing at it. FCYTravis 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And? I am not necessarily saying he falls into the public figure category. I am informing people of his notability, and feel the old article on him was not something Wikipedia could be sued over, as it stated facts alone. AFAIK Wikipedia can (and should) have articles on notable people, public figures or not. We just have to be more carful on what we say for those who aren't public figures. The latest revision of Brian Peppers' page was about as neutral and pure fact based as it can get.VegaDark 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not his fame is voluntary doesn't matter a single bit. Most serial killers probably never wanted to become famous. I'm sure Terri Schiavo wasn't voluntary, either.--Josh 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Peppers is not a serial killer, nor is he the focus of a major, precedent-setting legal case taken to the United States Supreme Court. Your attempts at comparison fail in every single possible way. FCYTravis 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and salt the earth behind it/protect from re-creation. Enough is enough. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Brian Peppers has never sought publicity and his family has asked for privacy. Let's treat the man with the dignity he deserves, and obviously hasn't gotten. Durova 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Having a strange appearance is not a criterion for Wikipedia notability. And Wikipedia shouldn't be a party to the morally handicapped mocking the physically handicapped. Monicasdude 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and never, ever, ever create this page again. Thunderbunny 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete. If Snopes.com has an article then Wikipedia should have an article about this infamous man.
• Keep deleted, as you might well imagine from my prior actions on this article. For the record, I have not yet received any reply from the individual who wrote to info-en@ and brought this matter to my attention in the first place. Though it's only been a day, I too am suspicious of their claim that they are a family member. I share this because it may incline some voters to see this matter in a different light, though I myself do not; derogatory information about a private figure remains unlawful (and inappropriate for Wikipedia independent of what the law might say) and that is the principal basis for my deletion. Others have already linked my prior comments on the talk page of the deleted article, which remain valid. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - I have mixed feelings on this. Procedure-wise, there's a case of undeleting/relisting. But I think its damaging to allow this to appear on Wikipedia, even temporarily. Leaving this on, sets a really bad precident, not just for others on a registry, but for any private person who gets their picture passed around on web sites for looking peculiar. If mainstream media picked this up widely and substantially (hopefully they won't), and they turn him in to a public figure, then we might be stuck with an article on him. But they haven't, and we should ignore this like they do. --Rob 09:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Too many claims, not enough legal evidence. Notable for being a meme, not for being deformed. And as far as I can[not] see, there's nothing derogatory here, and if there is, we can fix it. // paroxysm (n) 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• You think the "meme" would exist if the guy looked like you or me? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  No, and I don't see how this should affect my vote. We're documenting the meme because it itself is notable; Brian Peppers is not notable for being deformed. He's notable for being the subject of a popular meme because he's deformed.

  Likewise, there's nothing inherently notable about the phrase "Kilroy was here." Nevertheless, we document it because of the notability of its popularity. // paroxysm (n) 23:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I see a distinction in Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. Durova 04:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And I see a distinction in that Kilroy is remembered nearly a hundred years after it was first seen, whereas there is little verifiable evidence of Peppers' story being taken up by any mainstream media. He's a disabled guy with a congenital deformity convicted of a technical offence because he touched up his nurse. I'm not given to quoting scripture but this calls to mind proverbs 1:26: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh. I hold no brief for convicted sex offenders, but I really think that this amounts to kicking a guy when he's down, and I don't see that we should be taking any part of it. Anyone who wants the information can get it readily from other sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's Wikipedia policy for "Anyone who wants the information can get it readily from other sources" just because someone feels sorry for the subject of the article. I feel sorry for him as well, but I think Wikipedia having an article on him will actually better his situation- Many times his picture comes along with "You're gonna get raped" or "child molestor" etc. etc. I think Wikipedia having an unbiased, NPOV non degrading article on him listing facts alone is for the better for him and for Wikipedia. People should be able to come here and find out that those are false accusations instead of seeing a "this article has been deleted" message and keep their misconceptions about him. I know I first came to Wikipedia to look him up, and was happy to find an article on him. I hope others will get that same chance instead of seeing a "this article has been deleted" message. VegaDark 05:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a fair compromise: Undelete, edit down, and merge/redirect to a list of popular Internet Memes. That way, his contributions to popular culture are archived, but he doesn't get his own (derogatory) article. I won't take sides in this one, since there is already a war going on, I believe an article about him would be offensive, but I am also a reader of YTMND. Crazyswordsman 05:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to that, all other then the "edit down" part. The debate going on before the deletion was if more should be added, it seems unnecessary and unreasonable to edit it down given that. If anything, some small things should be removed and other notes should be added and it should be merged and redirected. --Bky1701 08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, and unilaterally burninate any more users trying to resurrect this article. Ral315 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete, i think the post above me proves that if Trogdor the Burninator gets his own wiki aritcle, then this popular internet meme should be allowed its own. the attempt to delete this article from is flagrant wikipedia censorship of a topic that makes some people uncomfortable. sparsefarce 11:04am, 9 feb 2006 (PT)
• Undelete per Jonatan. Gene Nygaard 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Unilateral deletion should never occur under such circumstances. This should have been relisted on AfD and the legal issue discussed. The fact that family members requested its deletion is in and of itself irrelevant. Allowing this to stand sets an awful precedent. Postdlf 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah, without changing my opinion about deleting based on family requests, I just noticed how many times this had been validly AFD'd (I have a fever right now, please forgive the illness-induced carelessness). Keep deleted only as a recreation of previously deleted material. The last AfD should have been aborted at the outset because no undeletion consensus had first been reached (from what I can see); I believe that AfD accordingly lacked "jurisdiction." Postdlf 02:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This first went through AfD with a consensus to delete, right when the meme was new and was not notable enough for Wikipedia. It went through 3 AfD's after that, which all ended up as a speedy delete due to a re-creation of previosuly deleted content - not due to people voting. It's latest AfD (December) was officially declared no consensus, yet there was a 44-21 vote in favor to keep, enough for the admin to have officially declared keep. Don't you think that says something? Also, we are going through an undeletion process right now- not an AfD. If you think the article should be kept or deleted, you should just say why here. If we kept it undeleted based on it being recreation of deleted material, we would have to submit another deletion review for Brian Peppers to be ruled as something worthy of undeletion- hence you might as well just state your opinion now. VegaDark 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The original AfD was valid. I've seen no reason to question that. Postdlf 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't just pick *one* of the AfDs - the latest one always trumps the others. And as I pointed out above, it's not like anyone brought the latest AfD here to DR. Turnstep 04:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete. He's famous, and often referenced to online. People who see all the talk of Brian Peppers and do not understand should be able to come here and find out. He definitely has significance. Most, importantly, this person has already been the victim of someone pretending to be his brother. A man claiming to be "Allen Peppers" posted a dishonest letter asking people to leave Brian alone. Therefore, my guess is that the person who requested that this article be deleted was probably not related to the subject in any way. Someone unrelated to Brian probably did this out of sympathy towards him, (likely caused by the "Truth About Brian Peppers" YTMND, which ironically made him even more noteworthy,) or someone who found humor in the idea of pretending to be Peppers' brother, like "Allen" before him.--Josh 04:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I hate to break it to you, but this guy isn't "famous." He's a target of derision, mockery and laughter from infantile, puerile teenagers on teh intarweb. That doesn't make him "famous." FCYTravis 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This "intarweb" you're mocking is what you're spending your time on right now, jackass. You're not the only one, either. An enormous percent of the world spends time on the Internet every day, and Brian Peppers is very well known on it. He's even been featured in mass media, in a story by FOX Toledo. Someone covered on that scale, who is known of by at least a quarter-million people, is undeniably notable. To deny his notability just because you think people are mean would be straight-up dishonest.

--Josh 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you have a massively inflated view of what the Internet is and what it isn't. Teh intarweb is not the world. In fact, it is only a very bare tiny percent of the world. Look outside your bedroom window. Get outside. Walk around. Talk to people. Real people who don't spend their pathetic lives on some silly "humor" site mocking some guy who bears the cross of some sort of disfiguring birth defect. Go to the supermarket. Ask 100 people who Brian Peppers is. If you're lucky, you'll find one. Maybe. Getting coverage by "FOX Toledo" is ridiculously simple. TV news is always looking for some sensationalistic tabloid trash. Yet that's THE ONLY media hit you can point to. That's pathetic. Utterly pathetic. I'll leave you with this. Last year, a national sports car magazine with a circulation of more than 70,000 ran a full-page feature article on me. I'm still not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Call me back when Brian Peppers hits Newsweek or The New York Times or even FOX News Channel. I'd even count Salon.com. But see, they aren't covering it. Why? There's *no story* here. None. Zip. Zilch. Just the fact that some poor guy got nailed for some minor sex crime and got put on probation, and some "jackass," to use your word, found his picture and went LOL LOL HEZ ULGY LOL SEX MOLESTSAR ZOMG ROFL and posted it on some more Internet boards where more groupthink mental midgets laughed at it. That's not newsworthy. That's not encyclopedic. That's just sad. FCYTravis 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this one...normally, I'd say the guy meets a minimum notability standard for inclusion, but at the same time, I feel kinda bad for the guy. In the end, I'm going to have to say undelete it. His Wikipedia article is not going to have anything except neutral, notable and fully verifiable information. I feel the odds of a significant number of people wanting to read an article on Peppers are pretty high, given the level of internet fame he has acquired, and the desire to provide the information in that instance is probably the most important thing here. Everyking 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - This one should be a no-brainer. We have no verifiable evidence regarding this claim that the family members want the article deleted; and even if they did, so what? There's a lot of information on Wikipedia some people don't want to see the light of day (see the U.S. Congress's editing of various articles for further details), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be around. This page certainly doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. If you want to undelete it and then relist it for AfD (again) then go ahead. But this page certainly didn't merit speedy deletion like that. --Cyde Weys 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Forget about the previous five AfDs; how about the rationale for creating the article in the first place? This basically boils down to "Hey look, we've got a picture of a really deformed guy; let's gin up a reason to humiliate him more than he already has been by the Internet community just for the hell of it." Brian Peppers has done nothing of notability. Nothing. Maybe it's time to start a policy discussion about creating a "basic humanitarian decency" criterion for speedy deletes? --Aaron 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would support that. I guess that the Interweb is so pervasive and so much a part of determining what is verifiable and significant in the real world that we kind of forget that it is the real world we're supposed to be documenting. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for broader discussion as this was deleted outside of process. If a law is being violated by allowing this material on Wikipedia, please cite the law and I will reconsider my vote. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Undelete People (thank God) dont apply the same reasoning to other internet memes so in my opinion people only want this deleted because they feel sorry for him (understandable) and want to vent out their anger by having the page deleted. It get's aroung 80,000 hits on google for Christ's sake I think it would be notable Johhny-turbo 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This deletion defies both process and common sense. Silensor 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Enough, please, of the misleading "He gets 15 zillion Google hits!" argument. If you remove the dozens of YTMND pages about him, he gets exactly 516 unique Google hits, and the last 20 or so of those are nothing but porno spam pages that inserted his name randomly. He's non-notable. --Aaron 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well Microsoft gets 436 uniques[6]. So, 516 isn't that bad. So, the unique count is about as worthless as the total hit count. --Rob 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Comment Thanks, User:Thivierr, for saving me the hassle of pointing out why unique google hits don't mean anything here. Look, it's unfortunate that this fellow is mocked by some, unfortunate that he's ridiculed, unfortunate that his family has to deal with this. But the standard here is -- he's a public figure. If I were writing something up for the paper, I'd have no compunctions about mentioning his name, and we cannot set a precedent for the disinclusion of information just because someone objects to it. What about Daniel Brandt? Boris Floricic? Why do we do for Brian Peppers, but not for them? Show consistency, and don't put us in awkward positions by semi-randomly deleting content by request. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Nobody has demonstrated why this man is a public figure. He has not been the subject of any public controversy. He has not injected himself into the public square. He has not been featured in any major mass media. He's an object of derision on an Internet humor site. That does *not* make him a public figure under the law. The other two people you cited have both been repeatedly the subject of reporting by major mainstream media outlets, including television, newsmagazines, newspapers and even books. The only thing that can be pointed to for this guy is one two-paragraph blurb on a local TV station Web site, and a Snopes entry. That's *it.* That is all. If someone wanted to write something on this for The Advocate, as a senior editor I'd circular-file that "story idea" in 10 seconds flat. There's a little something called journalistic ethics that precludes us from making a mockery of someone for no other reason than to be insensitive and depraved. This deletion is one small victory for culture and class over the juvenile schoolyard antics of immature idiots. FCYTravis 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm almost as surprised that you'd argue that Mr. Peppers is not a public figure as I am that you'd imply that the only way Mr. Peppers can be covered is by abandoning journalistic ethics. If we want to go for the misguided sympathy factor on this, then I invite you to consider the following: There are thousands of sites that mention Mr. Peppers. How many of them do you think will ever get updated if he does something good, notable, or respectable? One. Wikipedia. Otherwise, for the rest of his life, he's just that goofy guy from the photo. That's all. Deciding this by your sympathy doesn't help Wikipedia, and it doesn't help Peppers. I'm at a loss as to what good deletion would do. Ultimately, deletion, if upheld, would be a victory for the same tear-jerking appeals to emotion that sour much of mass media. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deletion means we don't repeat this nonsensical and asinine 'fad' and allow it to die a natural death as the people who laugh at this poor schlub grow out of their infantile amusement. BTW, how can you argue that Peppers *is* a public figure? Can you please point to the coverage? Anything? Bueller? Bueller? If this guy's truly a public figure, surely there's more out there than a now-deleted blurb on FOX Toledo and a Snopes entry. So where's the beef? Oh, that's right. There isn't any. This isn't an appeal to emotion. It's an appeal to reason and ethics. FCYTravis 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how I could argue otherwise. He's quite evidently an involuntary, limited-purpose, deeply-unfortunate public figure, based on extensive rehashing of his case in the public eye. Or did you mean that only the media can create public figures? That'd be a bit elitist of us as journalists, no? As for laughing at Mr. Peppers, I think you do a disservice to Wikipedia. I think it can handle this topic without cruelty or malice, and paint Peppers for what he is -- an unfortunate man, who's made mistakes, and still has a life ahead of him. I firmly believe deleting his entry is unethical. It deprives him of the one online resource that might keep track of any positive achievements of his, and says, basically, that we're going to sweep him under the rug, that we see him as so deeply pathetic that he's unsuitable for coverage. That isn't reasonable *or* ethical. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• How can I argue otherwise? The fact that *virtually nothing* has been said about this person anywhere outside juvenile morons laughing at his appearance on blogs and Web forums. Being laughed at does not make one a public figure. No reporting outside of that, at all. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Zip. I keep waiting for someone to show me some evidence of notability other than juvenile morons laughing at him. Nobody's presented any. We don't know that Peppers is an unfortunate man. We don't know what mistakes he's made. We don't know what his life is like or what it will be. Therefore, we at Wikipedia cannot say any of that. The only verifiable fact here is that he's some guy who got laughed at on the Internet, and I'll be damned if everything anyone ever laughed at on the Internet is encyclopedic. FCYTravis 02:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your assertions are incorrect on at least two counts. The man's had legal and medical misfortune; this much is established. He's made mistakes, per the rulings of the courts. If your issue is the lack of detail, we don't delete articles because detail isn't present, we develop them. Would you like this researched? We can always bring it back to DRV if I find anything worth publishing in a WP:NOT-worthy periodical. It'd make a fantastic human-interest piece. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. He is an odd-looking sex offender; this shouldn't qualify one for a Wikipedia article. We should respect his family's wishes. Rhobite 02:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise per Crazyswordsman (ie, cleanup, and merge/redirect to a list of popular Internet Memes). He clearly is notable, but I also feel we should respect the wishes of him and his family. Then again, we didn't do that for Daniel Brandt... --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Hes notible. Its his own fault if he does not want a page... No one forced him down the road he took. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • He is distinctly not notable for anything that he did. He is only notable for his appearance. --

Hamiltonian 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

He is notable for being the subject of a notable internet meme, which was directly related to his appearance and the fact that he is a sex offender. However, the reason for notability is irrelevant, as long as notability is recognized he should have an article on Wikipedia. VegaDark 22:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Without the ability to view the page that was deleted I can only comment on what I know. Editors, and even sysops, should not be the point of contact for the legal status of an article, very few of us are lawyers, and those that are do not represent Wikipeida (afaik). Wikipedia was not sued or even threated legally by Mr. Peppers. If this were to happen we would hear about it and the decision would not me one the editors of Wikipedia would be making, it would be up to the board. I am voting undelete because a precedence for an article being deleted based on legal dealings with an editor would be a very poor one to set. —A 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, wikipedia articles should not be deleted this way, and he is notable enough. bbx 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bible

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 24 votes for deletion, 3 weak deletes, 5 redirects, 1 to merge, and 5 keeps. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• It seems like a clear consensus to delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been redirected now. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wait a minute. Now you've changed the title of the article in your nomination. What article and specifically what AFD discussion are you requesting that we review? Rossami (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ahh... Simultaneous nominations. Now sorted out. Please post the link to the AFD discussion directly when making the nomination.
• This reflects a basic misunderstanding of how AfD works. I'm reposting a message I've already sent to two other people who asked me about this:

  AfD is not a vote.

  When votecounters try to impose their rigid definition of consensus on AfD, the minimum standard is 2/3rds or 66%.

  Delete, merge, and redirect are three different outcomes; if there is no consensus, the solution is for the AfD participants to hash out a consensus (whether to merge or redirect or resubmit to AfD) on the talk.

  In addition, merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL, which requires the page history to be retained if the content is retained. VOTECOUNTING IS BAD ^TM so I find it ridiculous that this is being brought up. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and DRV is for reviewing deletions only; that's why exists (users can't see the content of deleted articles, so they need to request admins on DRV to undelete them). Anything else can be handled by resubmitting to AfD or discussion on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You think it's ridiculous? Reading the guidelines on deletion, it is pretty apparent that your duty as the admin is to summarize your findings and determine a course of action. In this regard, you have pretty plainly been negligent. It seems that a rough consensus has been achieved - there are only 5 who want to keep it as it is, and 32 to get rid of it one way or another. By your standard, no article would ever be deleted as long as some group of people want to keep it. That is plainly not the case. --Leifern 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Surprise, surprise — this is the standard most AfD-closing admins adhere to. This is not a process worked out overnight; on a Wiki, there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision. (If I make an edit you don't like, but you don't revert it, there's consensus — if you revert it, there's no consensus. That's how consensus is defined on a wiki.) It is not my job to make a decision if a large number of people have reviewed a particular article and cannot come to consensus on what to do with it. No consensus is no consensus. It is not an endorsement or a disendorsement of a particular outcome, and defaults to keep unless the admin (in an editorial capacity) decides to merge and/or redirect. Ask pretty much any regular AfD closer (MarkGallagher (talk · contribs), The Land (talk · contribs), Splash (talk · contribs), et al) and they'll tell you the same thing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I dunno, I read the relevant guidelines, and what I read is a call for rough consensus not absolute consensus. If I rounded up three other editors and worked together on an article called Why everyone from Sunnmøre has bad breath, (an absurd, non-noteworthy, blatantly POV, rhetorically fallacious article) we'd probably get 300 "votes" to delete within a few minutes, and I somehow doubt that we as a group who opposed the deletion would get our way. Nor should we. --Leifern 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • But that is not like this case, where we only have ~30 "votes" to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• If the numbers given at the top are accurate, and I haven't checked to see if they are (and I have noticed in manmy of these reviews that they are not), we have 27 delete votes and 11 non-deletes. That's a rough consensus to delete in the eyes of most admins. I now it's not supposed to be a vote, but somehow it always comes down to a vote count anyway. And the idea that "there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision" is just not true. There is almost always some sort of small minority who oppose anything, they don't trump everyone else. But in any case keep redirected and if anything is to be merged it should be a content dispute at the target page. -R. fiend 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close - but keep redirected (and I voted to delete) --Doc ^ask? 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support his redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Count me in on the "endorse redirect" bandwagon, although there's a pretty clear consensus that the article should have been deleted first and then recreated as a redirect. Tomer^talk 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• A comment on merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL - this action can be made GFDL comliant, it's just a pain. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • True enough. In fact, it's one hell of a pain. Extreme Unction (talk · contribs) is quite fond of the technique, but I know of no-one else who'll lightly consider merging and deleting. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote. If all you have to say for yourself is the vote tally, your argument is far too weak. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the Bible

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 26 votes for deletion, 4 to keep, and 10 to merge. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• It seems like a clear consensus to delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflicts) I'm not sure how you tallied that or who you think should have been excluded. A cursory review gave me a tally of 28 deletes, 11 merges (with redirect specified or implied), 2 redirect only and 3 keep as is. That certainly seems to be within reasonable discretion for the closer to consider this a "no consensus" decision. Good arguments were made during the discussion but votes continued to come in on both side, indicating that the subsequent participants did not find one side's arguments onerwhelmingly compelling. I endorse the closure (leave as no consensus). Rossami (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• See above. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yep. Just boldly merge, that fits the bill. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Clear consensus is to get rid of the article, either as a complete Delete or as an attempt to find any redeemable portions and Merge elsewhere. Let's follow consensus, schedule the article for deletion, and let those in favor of a Merge pull out any non-duplicated material and put it elsewhere. Why keep the article in the face of such overwhelming consenus for elimination. We've voted to kill this article; the only question is the method. Alansohn 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't need DRV for this, as I said. There's a little thing called the talk page, you know. Or you could just be bold or something. But I forgot. Wikipedia is about process, not editing! Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• There wasn't a quorum for full deletion. If you want to merge the article, you don't need DRV to do that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Quorum? Where's the definition of a quorum on AfD? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• I just boldly redirected it. Anything that anyone wants to merge can be pulled out of the edit history by anyone at any time. There was an obvious consensus not to keep the article, so keeping it as is should be out of the question. Unfortunately, there are always a few confused souls who think that a no consensus means that the article must stay as is. Since that is complete and utter BS, this redirect should at least partially solve the prpblem. This argument can now contimue as a content dispute over at Internal consistency and the Bible. -R. fiend 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Like most other people here: Yes, there is probably a consensus to merge it. However, there was not a clear consensus to delete the article. 'Endorse the closer's decision. The Land
• Endorse close but redirect/merge (and I voted to delete) --Doc ^ask? 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close as obviously correct. AfD discussion suggests that mergeing would be the best outcome, but discussion may continue of the talk page. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support R. fiend (talk · contribs)'s redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reserve my spot on the closure endorsement, although my judgment would have been to have said quite clearly that the consensus was to merge and delete (possibly redirect), rather than that there is no consensus. I would like to encourage Johnleemk to read comments accompanying votes more carefully when making decisions of this sort in the future. It's also a good idea to ask a couple other uninvolved admins when closing contentious AfDs and the like. It may seem like a pain in the hinder, but it can go a long way toward reducing future hinderpains. Tomer^talk 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - From Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages: "Merging should always leave a redirect in place." Merge and delete causes GFDL problems. Having read the comments, I would say that those saying merge did indeed have the strongest arguments; however, given the number of those recommending deletion and noting that they have valid issues, as well as those recommending keeping or redirecting, I would say that there is no consensus and that John made the right call. -- Jonel | Speak 02:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to understand the point you're trying to make. Merging the miniscule amount of decent information and then deleting the crap content (by getting rid of the article) and thereafter recreating the article as a redirect do the article into which the useful content has been merged is what I mean by "merge and delete". The "possibly redirect" was meant as "possibly redirect without deleting first, after the content has been merged". That said, I wasn't "revoting", I was simply saying that I think that Johnleemk's interpretation of "no consensus" was in error, and saying what I would have said the consensus was instead. Tomer^talk 06:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment on "merge and delete": The scenario you describe violates the requirement in GFDL to preserve the attribution history of whatever usable information which you did choose to merge. We normally satisfy the attribution requirement by not deleting the history and by leaving a redirect behind. Yes, there are other ways to satisfy the attribution requirement but they are all tedious, complex and error-prone. That's why many of us take the default position that "merge and delete" is an invalid recommendation (or at least not a cost-effective one). Rossami (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
        • That can be worked around by deleting and restoring only the useful edits, and then blanking in favor of a redirect. Tomer^talk 20:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
          • comment continues: For all but the shortest of edit histories, investigating a page's history edit by edit and restoring "only the useful edits" is a great example of "possible but tedious, complex and error-prone". If you have time and the inclination to do that kind of work, more power to you. I think, however, that as a general rule, that is not a reasonable expectation on a volunteer discussion closer. Unless someone explicitly volunteers to come back and do that work him/herself after the discussion is closed, I will continue to interpret "merge and delete" as an incompatible opinion. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Reopened by howcheng. Aaron 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted's_Kiddush

I believe this article should not have been speedy deleted. The reason User:Jon513 offered for his deletion suggestion was that he lives in Jerusalem and has never heard of the club. This is not a valid reason. I too live in Jerusalem and can confirm that the club is very real, and in fact has an active mailing list. User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There were three votes for deletion and none to keep it. Valid AfD discussion. Keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, two. One is from the submitter. At the very least this should go to discussion if this is a question of whether or not this is a notable group.User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Since when is a nominator's vote not counted? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote; admins are not supposed to count votes to determine consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not really a valid speedy, and not enough delete votes to warrant an early closure, so reopening the discussion for another day or two wouldn't hurt. Then again, it's unlikely to yield a different result either. -R. fiend 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist Editor Thydulff, at least, saw an assertion of notability even as he voted delete; ergo, this A7 is contested, and a full vote is appropriate. Xoloz 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reopen on AfD - any assertion makes it non-speediable, and as Xoloz notes, Thryduulf saw such an assertion. Let the full discussion run its course. -- Jonel | Speak 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - concur with Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs) on reopening. -- Jonel | Speak 01:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reopen old as opposed to stright re-list, with note saying explicitly that it doesn't end five days after opening but after five days run-time to avoid any mistake. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Fine by me. I've already gone and done it, so this deletion review may be closed. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I live in Jerusalem and travel around the world for work. I'm currently in Australia. Ted's Kiddush is a real group and well known within the Jewish Community. There are people from different countries and nationalities that come to see the kiddush. I vote to relist the entry. Billingdude 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists

was closed prior to the 5-day period. I am requesting that the question be kept open for the regular period. A number of comments have been made about the future of the article beyond the keep and delete votes, and nobody has summarized them yet. I will certainly accept the results of the vote; I am simply asking that it not be a speedy keep. As it is, the vote tally is 5 clear deletes, 1 anonymous delete, 10 clear keeps, 3 keeps with comments, and 3 comments. To me this is not an overwhelming consensus, and people obviously have a lot to say about the article. I should also point out that when I protested against the premature closing, I was threatened with blocking. I do not think that asking for a process to run its course is unreasonable. --Leifern 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh. This had run for several days, and a clear consensus had emerged to keep the article. Worse, it had turned into a slug-fest with people accusing other people of bad faith, puppetry, etc, so I invoked Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closings. It was also clear that while people felt the article should not be deleted, they also felt that it needed drastic cleanup, and it appeared from the history and talk pages, that said cleanup was already underway. Since things were already going in the right direction, I didn't see what good would come from letting the brawl continue for another couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• If the early close is contested in good faith (and the request above certainly seems to qualify) then almost by definition there was not the required "clear consensus". The standard necessary for early closing is virtual unanimity and even that has been controversial at times. The fact that the discussion has degenerated is, unfortunately, not enough reason to close the discussion early. Beg people to be more civil in the discussion but let the discussion run its course. By the way, it looks like the AFD discussion only had another 24 hours to go so the early closure seems to have backfired and is now extending rather than shortening the controversy. Rossami (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sure doesn't look like a "clear consensus" to me, especially if it would only have taken two or three more delete votes to change that consensus. It should not have been closed early, let it run its course. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I counted 17 Keep to 4 Delete. I just went back and recounted and came up with the same sums. How do you get "two or three more delete votes to change that consensus" from that? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm involved in two debates on this page today, one in which an admin is arguing that consensus has to be absolutely overwhelming to be called for purposes of deletion; another in which another admin is arguing that a weak consensus is adequate to close a discussion. In both cases, we are dealing with admins who feel that their judgment is the determining factor. I think that if there is a bias to keep articles in one case, the same bias should apply for keeping the discussion going. Just my $.02, but maybe the admins who proclaim themselves judge and jury on the process for deletion should discuss among themselves rather than try to preach to us lowly editors. --Leifern 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • If I'm looking at the same two discussions, the difference is between a regular close (at the end of the 5-day discussion period and which requires only "rough consensus") and an early close (which requires "clear consensus" and which has been interpreted as a much higher standard). Failure to qualify for "clear consensus" only means that discussion continues until the 5-day period runs out. The 5-day rule is a practical compromise set to ensure that the system doesn't get completely stalled. If you're looking at something else, though, please send a specific question to my Talk page and I'll try to help. Rossami (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Looking through the discussion, it looks like a keep consensus to me (not a "no consensus: default to keep", but an actual consensus to keep, which is actually kind of rare). Unless someone can point out that most of those votes are sockpuppets (I didn't recognize a bunch of the names, but nothing made me suspicious of them, and I didn't check their edit histories) I don't see any harm in closing this after 4 days instead of 5 when the result was so obvious, and the discussion was just dragging on and on. endorse closure. -R. fiend 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I'm with R. fiend here. While there is some dispute, the harm in reducing from 5-days to 4-days a debate which was 17k-4d is de minimis. Especially considering the article might as always be AfD'ed again, after a reasonable time, there is no reason to reopen immediately a debate that had become somewhat heated. Xoloz 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see any point in attempting early closures in cases where there is any significant dispute. Let them run their course. The article has a big, conspicuous "deletion" tag on it, no reader is going to be in any doubt about its status. It's one thing when you have a borderline CSD that gets eight deletes and no keeps in two days... or a borderline vanity page that gets a solid string of deletes and the author of the page asks that the page be deleted (to spare him further embarrassment, although they don't usually put it that way). I sometimes think "when in doubt, don't delete" is taken to an extreme, but certainly "when there's any serious doubt, don't attempt an early close." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - it appears that the premature close was allowed to stand. I'm just curious: is there something like precedence here? Does this mean that we can close a discussion whenever we like the way the votes are going, provided there's lots of debate about it? This is the only conclusion we can draw from this decision. Congratulations. --Leifern 02:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As Xoloz says, I'd say it was interpreted as a de minimis case of an error in judgement by the speedy closing admin. The outcome–keeping the article–wasn't in doubt, as you acknowledged: [7]. An extra day on AfD wouldn't have materially affected the outcome, so give RoySmith a little slap on the wrists for jumping the gun and move on. Short of a change in the deletion policy, I would discourage other admins from closing contested AfDs early–even when the outcome is a clear keep–but there's no point to doing anything further with this article. Everybody agrees that the outcome we've achieved (the article is to be kept) is the one that the process would have generated had policy been followed to the letter; the spirit of the process hasn't been frustrated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I accept my wrist-slap, and in the best tradition of Bart's chalkboard gags on The Simpsons, I hereby atone for my sin against wiki-process:
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.

-- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

6 February 2006

Sin (musician)

Was AfD-ed and deleted on February 6 and re-added by a new user same day, with identical contents. Duja 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but note that I would have voted to keep if I had seen the Afd, for the reasons stated by Estavisti. I see nothing wrong with the process here though, and the article should not have been recreated. - N (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I have re-deleted it as an identical copy of the AfDed version. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• It was re-created again, and I have again deleted it and protected it against re-creation. Golly, someone really wants this article ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On retrospect, maybe I shouldn't have AfD-ed it, and the guy might have been (but only just) notable ((t)he appears to have ONE album, still short of WP:MUSIC). I Googled a little for "Sizzerb" and lurked around those hip-hop sites, but didn't manage to conclude the difference, if any, among Sin, Sizzerb, DJ Vlad, 1389 records and so on (not that I tried too hard). OTOH, the author(s) of the article did not care to present any arguments on AfD, just reverting AfD tag and recreating the article. Duja 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep deleted. It's good to have consensus on this. Additionally this nomination was yet another violation of WP:POINT. I'm closing it early per WP:SNOW. If you disagree, list it on Wikipedia:Deletion review review (don't). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pedo

This template was speedy deleted with minimal comment, and does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. It should be undeleted, or at least undeleted into user space. It was speedy deleted as part of an ongoing wheel war on a different template, and appears to have been confused with that template. It is not a recreation of deleted content. --Dschor 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Inflamatory. No value to the Wikipedia. May be a violation of WP:Point. Hamster Sandwich 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. While not identical to the template that resulted in the firestorm earlier this week, this template is in poor taste and bringing it back is likely to be unnecessarily inflammatory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. Marskell 14:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. In principle, this is a recreation (even if not identical) of the previously deleted templates and smacks of WP:POINT big time, especially given the constant recreations of those two templates. --Deathphoenix 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This template is not a recreation, and was expressly intended not to make a point. --Dschor 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted No way I can imagine that this could help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be useful for folks working on pedophilia related articles to find other editors to help out? --Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It cited as a "talk page", dear Dschor. Try using them instead. From previous experiences, I'm inclied to think they work. -Zero^Talk 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted obvious fork of {user pedophile} which was wheel-warred and eventually burned with fire by Jimbo. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted, properly deleted as unencyclopedic, WP:POINT, disruptive, you name it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep that crap deleted. Seriously. --Fang Aili 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We wouldn't have all this userbox trouble if people weren't idiots when it came to them. -R. fiend 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think our determination of what constitutes idiocy may differ slightly. --Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dschor with an issue like userboxes sometimes you have pick your battles. We will never get everyone to agree to allow all userboxes and we will never agree to having them all destroyed. The best argument, in a situation like this, attempts to find a middle ground. We should concentrate our efforts to save the important boxes that contain political expressions and idealogies. Userboxes like this only serve to further polarise everyone.--God of War 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate that some templates are more popular than others. I do not think deletion should be a popularity contest. This template was created as an attempt to find a middle ground, but was deleted immediately. This box has no POV, no political expression, and is clearly not divisive. The fact that it can be speedied and kept deleted demonstrates that there is censorship in user space, and that it is not based on anything aside from the bias and prejudice of editors. I have chosen this battle very carefully, and would not be defending this userbox if I did not feel that it is a perfect example of why the deletionists are wrong. --Dschor 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Keep deleted. This template is slanderous in the clearest sense of the word. -Zero^Talk 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is clearly not slanderous, in any sense of the word. This deletion, however, has led many editors to slander the creator of the template - but the template itself remains NPOV, factual, and helpful. --Dschor 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia; I believe this template to be out of place here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. PLEASE...keep this same old template deleted. Why do we need so many pointless userboxes that upset people and contribute nothing. Enough is enough. This just another WP:POINT vilation. This is not even funny.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - If this isn't a valid CSD T1 then nothing is. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We can't use CSD T1 yet (as Jimbo asked us not to), but this template is polarizing nonsense. Ask Brion to take the edits off the database. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is an encyclopedia. ENCEPHALON 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - although this appears doomed due to vote stacking and intolerance. --Dschor 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid CSD. --FloNight 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Care to provide some evidence for the vote-stacking assertion? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• See above. This drv is full of folks who simply dislike userboxes, and who recognize that few wikipedians will go out on a limb to prevent the deletion of less popular templates. This userbox would be perfect for a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia, and really has no offensive content at all. This is an example of improper use of speedy deletion. Remember Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. --Dschor 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Best blond joke ever and/or Best blonde joke ever

• Hi. User:Lucky_6.9 speedy deleted the newly made article "best blonde joke ever." I think he did so unjustly. I don't think it meets any of the Criteria for speedy deletion. Some possible points for speedy deletion:

1. Recreation of deleted material - I think the original article was also speedy deleted. And this article is also quite different from the original. So No.
2. Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). - I think the article provides substantially more info than this example.

Some points in favour of it not being deleted at all:

1. A different person has made an article with the same title an theme earlier. Another different person has made "best blond joke ever" :).
2. It has 233.000 hits in google. A random article of lucky_6.9 "Eisenhower Medical Center", has only 78.000 hits.

And I would like to add: Wtf is it with this deletion system? I cant get the material back from the article, not even to review to make my argument. And finding and going to this page, which seems to be the only way to get it back, was not obvious to me. My guess is that you will discourage a lot of new potential wikipedians with this. Jonatan 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• It should probably be pointed out that best blond joke ever was actually deleted by User:Woohookitty for the reason "nonsense. the links are literally links to links to links." Best blonde joke ever was deleted by User:Lucky 6.9 twice. --W.marsh 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Blonde jokes. Kappa 00:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Best blonde joke? Not verifiable. Redirect per Kappa. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as a nonsensical non-article. If anyone wants to make it a redirect as Kappa suggests, they can go ahead, but it shouldn't be undeleted. -R. fiend 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• It's an obnoxious prank - an endless series of links that all hype a non-existent joke and link you to the next website. Keep deleted with prejudice because these pranks have no place in the encyclopedia. If necessary, create a protected redirect to prevent this from reappearing. (Note: There was one deleted version which attempted to argue that this has become an "internet meme". I do not find sufficient evidence to support that claim.) Rossami (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've created the redirects. Protect/redelete/whatever if necessary. -- Jonel | Speak 05:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ummm... undelete, but make into a useful article - the joke is fairly called "the best blonde joke ever" because, well, that's the core of the joke. It should, however, be a joke about the development and creation of this particular joke. As for the Internet meme claim, the nature of the joke is to be spread across dozens of blogs and journals in a pretty large chain - that seems fair game to me. Phil Sandifer 05:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Anyone remember "how to keep an idiot busy for hours"? This seems to be no more than a stale retread of a joke that wasn't all that fresh to begin with. Keep deleted unless and until someone can find verifiable third-party sources describing this so-called "internet phenomenon". —Charles P._(Mirv) 06:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment.

Kappa: It is not actually a blonde joke.

Rossami: While I agree that if it wasnt an internet meme, it should be probably be deleted, I think it definitely is. To back this claim I checked the meme article, found an example of an internet meme, and googled it. I found the term "Icy Hot Stuntaz". It gave 31.400 hits in google. Let me repeat that "best blonde joke ever" gave 233.000 hits. And thats even just the tip of the iceberg! (Since other blogs will have phrased it slightly differently.)

My main point of defence is that because of its huge size, many, many people will see it. And some will come to wikipedia for information about it. Why not provide these people that information? Because you yourself are not interested? I see no good reason. Jonatan 09:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete. Much more notable than the average wikipedia article. Can't see how any of you can claim that the article is nonsense. There are millions of users seeing this joke every day and many of them wants some encyclopedic information about it. That is very real. Wikipedia is here to give them that information. Of course the article should stick to what is known from reliable sources, rather than making guesses. The fact that the article were created independently twice and the information was added to blonde joke also attests to the demand for information about the phenomenon. In any case this review has already clearly disproved the speedy-deletion, since the topic of it's deletion is controversial. Since the article text is now unavailable it is essential that we get it back before we make a final consideration as to it's merits. --CygnusPius 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Have you seen the deleted Best blonde joke ever? It is 5 lines, has no context and is written so confusingly that I really doubt it's useful to anyone. --W.marsh 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD (whichever had more/better content, but note that blonde gets far more hits). Should not have been speedied because there seemed to be enough context to allow expansion, and the notability of the subject is contentious, so AfD is the proper place for this discussion. Without seeing the content, I make no comment as to which way I'd go at AfD. - N (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep as redirect, unencyclopaedic title, content is more than adequately covered at blonde joke, content was lame and smelled strongly of vanispamcruftisement. This was mostly about a link to a blog - I think they need to find a better way to increase their pagerank. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the deleted version, but without prejudice. If someone wants to make a useful and coherent article at Best blonde joke ever, fine, although it might very well end up on AfD. Undeleting the deleted version is not a really good idea, since a cleanup would involve creating an entirely new article anyway. --W.marsh 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

However, as I see the information on this meme is now covered in Blonde jokes, to where people looking for the 'best blonde joke ever' are redirected, I think that's a good solution. --W.marsh 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete This is silly. The article was wrongfully speedy deleted. We have no basis for arguing whether it should be deleted, since people can't see the content. For instance Just Zis and W Marsh comments seem to be about another entry, than the one I was talking about. I agree that the version I wrote wasn't very encyclopedic. But I didnt get half a chance to improve it. Since it was speedy deleted and gone within an hour. Jonatan 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can't speek for W Marsh but I'm an admin and can see and have looked at the deleted history. I see nothing encyclopaedic there which isn't already already covered twice, in blonde jokes and in how to keep an idiot busy for hours. This DRV seems to be an exercise in "how to keep Wikipedia busy for hours discussing the supposed non-inclusion of something which is already included." - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well I agree with that. There's no compelling reason to undelete the unencyclopedic version. I encourage Jonatan to work on Blonde jokes, which is where anyone interested in this topic will be redirected. --W.marsh 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• The bit in blonde jokes was only expanded after this discussion started, though. (Also it is factually wrong, or at least misleading.) I would like to question whether the meme should be included in the blonde jokes article, since it is not actually a blonde joke. However, is this the place to discuss that? Jonatan 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per W.marsh. --Kbdank71 17:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the article itself was nothing but a series of external links. That's a clear speedy deletion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• See this is what Im talking about. The article version I put in question definitely wasnt just a series of external links. But non-admins cant see that, since it was speedy deleted. Jonatan 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep deleted per W. Marsh. Xoloz 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• A clear keep deleted. I agree with Rossami, Mirv, W.marsh et al. Wikipedia is not LiveJournal or blogspot; it is (or aims to be) a serious encyclopedia. Articles in wikipedia are governed by the cardinal editorial policies of the mainspace. Text must be verified against independent, reputable sources. The original article contained the sentence "An internet meme that is now very common throughout the internet", and an external link to a flickr.com page.[8] It does not fulfill the barest, most elementary requirements of encyclopedia article-writing. The claim it makes is entirely unsourced. There are no books, monographs, theses, newspaper articles or other such sources that concern the subject. The subject, if we may dignify it by using that word, is such that no one will ever be able to write more than a couple of sentences about it—all likely unverifiable. The admins concerned were quite correct to speedy them; certainly an excellent argument can be made that the thing is little more than a hyperlink into the virtual maze that forms this limpid virtual joke. The argument is made that we should be providing "information" to the hordes of chaps bound to come scurrying to Wikipedia to reab about this thing. That's a very commendable sentiment, I agree. But what "information" are we to give them? That the joke is, in fact, a joke? That it is also an "internet meme" — an unverified claim? That it is the "best" blonde joke ever—a non-neutral POV? That's all? That isn't an article, and doesn't deserve a page, in my humble opinion. I agree with Rossami that protecting Jonel's redirects would not be a bad idea. This encyclopedia deserves better from us; it deserves the respect and care that go toward writing, wherever possible, beautiful, well-researched, authoritative articles that may be praised in Nature, not (with all due respect) careless, unverified claims that may be derided on CNN. ENCEPHALON 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I do agree with Jonatan in one respect: these things were speedied, and it is a fair request that a review of its status take place on AFD, rather than DRV. I have no problems with DRV per se, of course: in its latest form DVR is probably the most thoughtful, accurate and fair forum for the discussion of article-related issues on WP (yes, I'm aware that a small group of colleagues have quite different opinions). However, if the article under DRV consideration has never been reviewed by non-sysops I would ask that it be place under {{TempUndelete}}, and any newer version that people would like to contribute to be placed on an appropriate temporary subpage. It would be better to AFD. ENCEPHALON 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I cant really give you an article that will be praised in nature with this subject. But I could imagine some information which might interest people who look at the article.

For instance:

-What it is.

-That it is an internet meme, as you mention.

-That it is widespread

-When it started and by whom, if known. That this is unknown if it isnt. Perhaps some sort of "we know it is earlier than this" statement.

-How the initial link structure was, if known. That it is unknown if it isnt.

-If there actually is a joke somewhere. That this is unknown if that is the case.

-How fast it spread/is spreading.

-Comparison to similar memes, if applicable.

-A link to some site where you can see it.

Jonatan 23:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply. I could not have better enumerated why we shouldn't have this, Jonatan. All the claims are problematic.

I did not say that "it is an internet meme"—I said that's an unverified claim. The epistemologic status of the other claims is equally grave. Is it unknown if there is "a joke in there somewhere"? If you write, "it is not known whether there is a joke in there..." don't you really mean that you don't know whether anything is known? That's a big difference. After all, a large bunch of folks might have inserted some jokes along the way, and this might be known to a huge number of those people (but not you), correct? And therefore, you'd be writing something untrue into our encyclopedia, wouldn't you? There is a similar problem with the rest. These are the hallmarks of inconformity with WP:V, Wikipedia's most widely misunderstood policy. No matter how enticing it might be for us to write something in Wikipedia on a personally-liked topic, the first consideration is always that the fundamental mainspace policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:Copyrights) are observed. If any one of them isn't (or cannot be), the text should not be (or be allowed to remain) in the mainspace. Regards ENCEPHALON 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I wasnt familiar with the strict verifiability policy when I started this.

Actually, I think most wikipedians aren't. "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." This is very strict. By this criterion there shouldnt be any mention of the meme in the blonde joke article either. As I searched around a bit on wikipedia with this criterion in mind, I found an awful lot of material that was questionable at best.

I know this is not relevant, but I would just like to add, that I dont really like this policy. If it was actually followed, I don't think I would like wikipedia half as much as I do. For instance the list of unusual place names which is in question, should be deleted. And, I think, most of many of the articles about internet stuff.

Jonatan 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yebbut you can go to Slashdot or b3ta or wherever and see the internet crap, the point of Wikipedia (for me) is that it gives you knowledge that otherwise you'd only get from a large multi-volume encyclopaedia or your library. Look at Robert Hooke, there's information there which is collected from all kinds of places including at least one important book of which only a few copies are known to exist. And if you have those rare sources, it lets you share the knowledge with others who might be interested. Duplicating stuff that's already all over the internet is not what it's about, not for me, anyway. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can go to b3ta and see some internet crap yes. In the same way I can go outside and look at clouds. But Id also like to read about it.

I agree the Hooke article is good. Just a thought: There needs to be a reputable source saying that the external links are in fact external links regarding this guy, right? Those might exist. I doubt the one who wrote it had access to this though. Jonatan 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To give a more concrete example of my problem, take a look at the forum section of the Straight Dope article. Now, this was very useful to me. But I don't think there'd be much left if No original research was followed. Jonatan 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Marianne Curan

Out-of-process speedy deletion. Objection to speedy deletion properly filed, article deleted shortly thereafter. Subject of (quite lousy) article has an IMDB entry meeting notability standards for working actors. [9] [10] Hosting 3-4 shows on major (basic) cable TV networks like USA, GamesShow may not demonstrate excellence as a thespian, but at least puts her in the Kadee Strickland range of notability. Monicasdude 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I was about to vote "undelete" when I looked at the content. This sucks so badly that it's probably better to just wait until somoene comes along with a better article, so keep deleted because there is pretty much nothing here which would survive the necessary cleanup. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I said it was quite lousy, but it could quite easily be stubbed with an IMDB link added. Monicasdude 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm with JzG. A cleaned up version of what was deleted would be substantially different so as to not be a recreation of deleted material (CSD G4), so really, no need for undeletion, just recreate it in a better form. --W.marsh
• Agree with JzG, the article is crap. Keep deleted with no prejudice against a half-decent anything written under the same title. -R. fiend 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• At the moment, I'd have to go with Undelete and keep as out-of-process speedy deletion of notable subject, but you adminstrators have the advantage of being able to see the content. Would someone mind temp undeleting the page, or posting the contents here, so others can have a look? If it's that bad, I will recreate the page. - N (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Article was an unencyclopedic write-up for Super Decades, one of the shows she supposedly presented. I'd be happy to userfy it if anyone wants to attempt a rewrite and move it to the proper location when they're done. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes please - N (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted as written, Rewrite and keep if anyone feels like it. The article was one of the worst non-attack pages I recall seeing on WP. Here's a sample of the text: "those of you who don't know about GSN, SHAAAAAAAAAAAME ON YOOOOOOOOU!" It wasn't even about its supposed subject, Marianne Curan, but Super Decades. We are better off having no article than this one, so it should remain deleted. I do think Marianne Curan is notable enough for an article though, if anyone wishes to write a new one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Starblind, as the content described is useless. Valid A1 speedy. Xoloz 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Howard

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Howard suggests this article was to be deleted, and yet it is still there. Could someone look into this? To me it seems the whole article is a hoax, created by a confirmed anon vandal. Balcer 19:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like the closer just forgot to carry out the deletion. Easiest thing to do in such a case is drop a note on his talk page. In any case, I've carried out the deletion now. -R. fiend 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the Deletion Log, the closer deleted it on 24 Nov 05. On 30 Jan 06, it was recreated and edited by several users. Later that same day, Petaholmes restored the history. In doing so, he/she would almost certainly have seen the link to the AFD discussion. No explanation was given for the decision to restore. Looking at both versions, the current content is only trivially different from the deleted content. Given that all subsequent versions were still unverified, I endorse R. fiend's speedy re-deletion. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Armand Traoré

A football (soccer) player who was reported to have signed for Arsenal F.C. but reference to whom was not found on The Official Arsenal Website. It now emerges that reference can be found on the official website to him at [11], [12] and [13] (though the lattermost may possibly be yet another piece of Dudek-like "evidence"); these should constitute verifiable source to support a page on this player. --Pkchan 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The original reason for deletion was non-notability, and the reason still stands. Although it is now verified that he is at the club, he's just a 16-year-old who is nowhere near the first team - the only difference between then and now is that he has played one (just one) reserve match. Many other members of the Arsenal reserve squad have played more reserve matches than that, and do not have Wikipedia articles (e.g. Gavin Hoyte, Sean Kelly, Marc Elston). He is still not listed in the official Arsenal first-team squad [14] - until he is I do not believe the article should be recreated. Besides, the information on the official website (and elsewhere online) is still pitifully inadequate - merely his name and the date he joined Arsenal - there is barely enough for a substub at this point in time. Qwghlm 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment If the original reason for deletion is non-notability then I have no argument with the prior decision. --Pkchan 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted proper process for nn prof soccer player. --FloNight 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Foxymorons

I can't believe I'm really doing this, despite my deletionist nature. Speedy deletion of the above article (presumably as nn-band) was out of process. The article when I removed the first nn-band tag had a claim to notability, and what's more...(again, I can't believe I'm saying this) the band is actually notable. A glance to their site reveals a listing on Allmusic and their 3 full length albums. I'm willing to work on the article but I'd like to see what was added, etc. and would like an undeletion on the article. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment No need to get it undeleted. Just compose a decent stub, indicating what's notable, offline or your user page, and re-create it. List the albums, cite a review. Entire previous content consisted of the following two sentences: Dpbsmith (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mesquite, Texas-based indie-rock band made up of childhood friends, Jerry James and David Dewese. Formed in 1994, the band, who is notorious for its lack of touring, has released three albums to much critical acclaim.

Comment: Ah, OK. I didn't know whether anything else had been added to it before it'd been whacked, though. I'll write it up. Thanks. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

4 February 2006

Template:Commonsgallery

Despite its TfD discussion attracting 3 votes for delete and 4 keeps, plus a keep from an anon who has a few non-project contributions, User:MarkSweep closed the discussion as a delete on the grounds that "The result of the debate was better arguments for deletion than for keeping it." I dispute this decision on two grounds:

1. That is not the admin's call; the deletion discussions may not be votes, but closing admins are, as far as I've gathered from my experience on AfD, not court judges, there to decide which side 'won'; they are there to decide what the community thinks. It renders the whole 'discussion' thing slightly pointless otherwise.
2. Even if I'm wrong on the above point, MarkSweep's decision that there were better arguments for deletion is still extremely shaky IMO. None of the delete voters ever tried to argue the counterpoints the keep voters made against their arguments. These arguments included the fact that the template supposedly advertised for Olympus (it had a picture of a camera, far too small to make out the model). --Malthusian (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• As the closing admin, let me explain my reasoning in more detail. First, we'll have to discount one keep "vote" from an anon. Second, Nickj is using his "vote" as a vehicle for something unrelated, namely improving or changing Template:Commons. Nickj wrote: "That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved." That's not a reason to keep Template:Commonsgallery. You don't go about changing Template:Commons by forking it and then voting to keep when the fork is nominated for deletion. Third, "Keep, useful template" by Ryan Delaney is fine, but it's not a relevant argument: Template:Commonsgallery was nominated here because it was a fork of an already existing maintenance template: and precisely because it is a fork of a useful template, it is of course useful, but that's not what this debate was seeking to establish. Fourth, there were three delete votes (by Netoholic, Petaholmes, and Phil Boswell) arguing that template forks are bad. The two serious votes in favor of keeping never properly addressed why the forked templates is needed. I completely ignored the bit about the Olympus ad as tangential to the discussion. Fifth, even if we regard the outcome of this debate as "no consensus", it makes no sense to default to keep in the Template namespace: templates, unlike articles, are tools which facilitate and enable; they should only be kept when they are truly needed. As I've said in my comments when I closed this discussion, I was much more swayed by the arguments for deletion, and in the end this is a discussion, not a vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - on the principle that forks are bad. FCYTravis 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Mark seems to be under the impression that the people behind the template have not bothered to explain what it is for, which is false: it has been extensively explained at Template_talk:Commons and the TfD. Briefly (I don't know why I'm bothering as I thought DRV was about process and not content, but FCYTravis has indicated otherwise): some of us believe the links to Commons galleries would look better if accompanied by a picture explaining what it was going to (e.g. a camera for a gallery of pictures). No-one's yet tried to claim otherwise, the only argument for deletion that's been put forward has been 'standardisation and maintenance'.
• I don't see how this was a 'fork' any more than {{test-n}} is a fork of {{test}}. Both do the same thing, but {{test-n}} does it slightly better in a certain context. Same with this. I admit that the name of the template does scream 'fork', being a redundancy; that was a mistake on my part. I was expecting to move the template to {{commonsimage}} as soon as the TfD was closed. --Malthusian (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Moreover, I'm not going to reply to MarkSweep's responses to why he discounted most of the votes on one side one by one (I've already explained why the 'serious voters' had, in fact, "properly addressed why the forked templates is needed"). But I will say that I think that if the arguments of a certain 'side' in a discussion are weak, it should be explained why they are weak at the time, rather than the closing admin waiting for the discussion period to end, discounting them, then waiting for someone to bring the TfD to DRV to explain why they were weak enough for the editors' opinions to be ignored. If nothing else it would save time. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • TfD is a debate about the merits of templates. Rather than talking about "sides" one should talk about the outcomes of that debate and the arguments advanced in favor of them. If I see a weak argument or an argument that does not even address the central question of the debate, I call it as I see it. As for commenting on the merits of the various arugments before closing the debate: what do you want me to do? I didn't even know of this particular debate until I started to do my share in trying to clear out the TfD backlog. And if I had been aware of it and commented on it earlier, I wouldn't be in a position to close it. And by the way, I wasn't waiting for someone to bring this here. If you're only interested in saving time, then let it go and work on changing Template:Commons through the customary channels. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • *sigh* I'm going to have to surrender on any further discussion - I tried to reply to Mark's last post but couldn't manage to string three separate counterpoints together in a way that made any sense. I'm just going to say that I used the word 'side' in the sense of 'those who voted one particular way', not 'side' in the sense of 'cabal'. I think it would be worthwhile to have more illustrative {{commons}} templates, but if it gets shot down, well, c'est la vie. If I die in my sleep tonight and St Peter asks me 'And how did you spend your life?' I don't want to have to tell him that my last night was spent fighting a rearguard action over diversifying a Wikipedia template. --Malthusian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted — MarkSweep is surely right in both principle and detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have forked templates many times, as it is sometimes the only way to switch over from one design to another. I was not aware the cabal disapproved of it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Mel Etitis. --Kbdank71 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The fact that {{commons}} is seemingly perma-protected pushed me over the edge. If one cannot edit the template without going through various bureaucracy (requesting unprotection and hoping that succeeds, or getting consensus on the talk page - so much for being bold!), then forking may be the best option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. MarkSweep's repeated violations of deletion process are becoming more and more disruptive. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. - How can you can get an result of 5 to keep, and 3 to delete, and decide that "delete" is the right outcome? It makes a complete and total mockery of the concept of consensus. Secondly, for Mark Sweep's "reasoning" that he can disregard my vote, and the votes of others: I wasn't aware that we had ceded complete dictatorial powers to Mark Sweep, so if someone could point to the relevant official wiki guideline outlining his new overlord status, that would be super, thanks. Third, I note that none of the votes to delete were disregarded, so it's good to see that the fine example of Florida lives on! Fourth, the reasons for changing this were outlined extensively on the Commons talk page, and have still not been addressed. Fifth, the commons template is still protected - so, given that anything related get deleted, and the originally seems to be permanently protected, how, exactly, is anything about these templates ever supposed to be improved? Frankly, this really is an appalling decision. If you're going to ignore what the community says, then why even have a deletion process? I mean, really, why bother? Just unilaterally delete whatever you like, irrespective of consensus - it'll give the same result, but without wasting everyone's time by giving the illusion of wanting community input and general agreement. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Mark's justification here. However these exceptional closes should be explained when closing. Pace the squeals of outrage, please note that: (i) TfD does not have a clear numerical criteria for assessing when there is a concensus and (ii) the kind of carefully justified discounting Mark has undertaken here would, if done when closing the *fD dsicussion, be a good thing for the health of *fDs: if you object to these vote discounts, what discounts would you agree with? --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconded with a pat on the back and a kiss on the cheek. A great many of the discussions that take place on DRV could be avoided if closers took more care with explaining their thinking when they close. Rossami, in particular, provides clear evidence that he has thought about the arguments presented, and I've seen closes of his run to two paragraphs. This is a good thing, and should be more widespread. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the feedback. You have a good point, and I've added my above comments to the TfD page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. Whilst Mark's arguments to delete are convincing, and convinced me that it should be deleted, there seems to be enough dissension to warrant a re-examination of the decision. 5 votes to keep against 3 to delete is not a decent consensus to keep, parituclarly given that the last two votes to keep were a) from an IP and b) two words, but I would have thought that this would be enough for the Template to remain pending further discussion. Deleting it was against the principle of consensus on deletion. If Mark makes the same excellently clear and cogent arguments to delete then I'm sure people will make the appropriate decision. And I think Nickj's reason for keeping is entirely valid - if he believes the template si necessary until the commons template itself is fixed, then that is a valid reason for him to believe the commonsgallery one should be kept. Proto||type 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It seemed a perfectly valid position to me, given the facts. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reverse and Keep as per the consensus what was the point of the votes if the deciding admin was going to maket he call anyway? Some nerve.Gator (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hey look, I lied, one more comment. MarkSweep's reasons for discounting most of the delete votes may make sense on the outside, but to me there seems to be equally good reasons for discounting the delete votes. One said "performs the same function as {{commons}}" (none of the counter-arguments to that here, on the TfD and on Template_talk:Commons have ever been addressed), another said (paraphrasing for brevity) 'template forks are evil, and advertises for Olympus'. Of that last post, the first argument is not an argument, the second rather nonsensical (maybe it was in jest, but Mark talks about "serious votes"). Why not discount those arguments too?
• Now at this point I think we can agree that it becomes ridiculous, having unilaterally discarded almost the entire debate, which is why I disagree with vote discounting on principle in all but the most obvious cases (sockpuppetry/trolling), for two reasons: 1) If an argument is weak, someone should say so at the time so its proponent can respond to the criticism without having to do it at WP:DRV, and 2) If the overall case for one 'side' (ooer, used that word again) is weak, then people will read it, be unconvinced, vote delete and the article will be deleted by an actual consensus (not just a consensus of "serious voters"). If the reason for the *fD not getting enough delete 'votes' was because it didn't get enough attention, then relist it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closing admin properly discounted "votes" which did not comply with policy directions; TFD page expressly says Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria [for deletion] above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. Voting standards were clear, and closing admin quite properly followed them rather than disregarding them. Monicasdude 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but my vote/comment/preference was discounted because of my mistake in pointing something out, not because of my reasons. My reasons are that the newer template is (in my opinion) clearer, easier to understand (both in language and visually), and more exact than the commons template. My conclusion therefore was keep. My mistake was apparently in saying that there would be no reason for commonsgallery if commons could be improved (but unfortunately, that seems to be impossible), and that in that situation I would most likely change my vote. Furthermore, it should be noted that this template doesn't even seem to pass the tests of whether it should be proposed for deletion: Is it helpful? Yes. Is it redundant? No, I don't think it is (see reasons above). Is it used? Yes. Is it NPOV? Yes. Was it a candidate for speed deletion? No. Therefore, it doesn't even seem to fulfil the basic criteria for being listed on TfD, let alone the criteria to actually be deleted. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

3 February 2006

1 February 2006

Template:Google

This is a complicated story. A template I created and have used many times in talk pages discussions (primarily related to WP:RM) was deleted as a "recreation" of templates with the same name that had been used for spamming the "external links" section of articles. The previous versions were deleted, either by TFD or as recreations, and with good reason. However, my version was independently created (seriously, I didn't even notice it's history at the time), and has had a useful life on Wikipedia for more than five months (mostly with subst). As a community, we are clearly accepting of external link templates, i.e. Category:External link templates, and so I see no reason why this should have been deleted.

A comparison of the current and past versions follows.

My version:

• Created: Aug 5, 2005
• Format: {{google|Foo}} = Foo
• Uses: WP:RM, WP:AFD, and talk page discussion, i.e. Wikipedia:Google test.
• Deleted: Speedied Feb 1, 2006 as "Recreation".

Previous Versions:

Created	Format	Used	Deleted
July 11, 2004	{{google|Foo}} = Google Search for "Foo"	Spamming external link sections of articles (see TFD)	Circa Oct. 2004 (no deletion logs yet): Via TFD
December 20, 2004	{{google|Foo}} = Google Search for Foo	Probably same	Dec. 24, 2004: Speedied as recreation
March 1, 2005	{{google}} = [15] on Google Note this version used {{PAGENAMEE}}	"Reference" section of a couple articles	March 8, 2005: Speedied as recreation
April 2, 2005	{{google|Foo}} = Google	Not sure	May 19, 2005: Second, brief TFD along with {{Googlethis}} which was another {{PAGENAMEE}} construction

As you can see, my version was longer lived than all the rest combined, and as far as I know was not being abused in article space. I know that others have referenced {{google}}, and though its use is not widespread, it is also not a single user template either. Frankly, my version was useful and used respectfully, and hence should not have been regarded as a recreation of the above mess. I would very much like to see this useful little widget undeleted. Dragons flight 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I can't see the need for this to be here. Undelete - make as 'never to be used in articles' - and list on TfD if anyone objects. --Doc ^ask? 11:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have brought it here, but the person who deleted it this time rejected my argument that it should be undeleted, so here we are. Dragons flight 12:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete Thryduulf 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (well, marked with deletedpage and protected). Search links are never encyclopedic. I'd also like to see a big notice posted on the protected page explaining that. For those few "good intent" situations like Project pages... you don't need a template. If we restore its functionality, it will end up being used in articles, and I don't want to be checking it every couple months. The argument that the community is "accepting" of External link templates doesn't fly because most external link template (IMDB, etc.) point to specific encyclopedic references. General search templates do not fit with that purpose, and where they are found they are routinely deleted via TFD. -- Netoholic @ 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that you can use google as an interwiki link. In other words, a template isn't really required... you can simply [[google:Foo]], rather than {{google|Foo}}, and it does purty much the same thing. Simple to use; doesn't require templates. Nonetheless, I can still see this being useful, so Undelete. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why the big delay between the deletion and DRV? Reserve comment on merits for now. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• There was really little delay. The template was speedied yesterday, and that is the specific deletion being contested. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• My bad. I was reading the table as encompassing ALL versions. I redact the question. Sorry for confusion. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per Blu Aardvark. I see how people can call it obsolete with the interwiki method, but I didn't know it existed until today. Regardless, it was deleted as a speedy which it clearly isn't. Whether this particular template is obsolete is something that should be decided by a discussion not speedy deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. if the template works properly, it will help expedite the sluggish AFD process in many cases. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:01, Feb. 2, 2006
• Undelete and list at TfD as the speedy criteria don't seem to apply directly in this case. Note I'd probably speak out in favour of deletion anyway since there exists another technique to do this, except that if this template is widely used, that would be disruptive to the pages where it was used. (although since it was mostly subst'd maybe that's not that many, what links here shows well less than 20 uses) ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD as not "substantially similar". If kept at TfD A large Do not use in articles might be a good idea, or would that be a case of WP:BEANS? Perhaps the creatotr would undertake to check for article links on a regular bassis, say once a month? Of course, the non-template method listed above might lead to TfD deleting this, but that ought to be discussed, not the result of a speedy. The tempalte method might actually make it easier to look for article uses, which i agree are improper. DES ^(talk) 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. As per WP:DP, "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article." Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• ...or of a common misunderstanding. Where within the general guidelines on external links do we include Google? Is it a reliable source? Ut leaves us in the position of effectively promoting whoever is most successful at search engine optimisation. But I guess that's a matter for the TfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• In general, I'm opposed to just giving some enduser encyclopedia reader a googlesearch in articlespace as if that was a well thought out thing. References, cites, and external links should be specific, and should have been reviewed or verified by the editor that placed them there for their credibility, applicability, and quality. Googlesearches by their very nature can't be that, as they return different things at different times. That doesn't mean this template is not useful in any way in projectspace or in articletalkspace. (for giving examples of how to find things, for making notability arguments and so forth.) What I think Crotalus was referring to was the idea of repeated independent invention of the idea as an argument that maybe the idea has validity, not that this template specifically be used in articles, per se. But as you and I both are saying, I think, is that it should go through a TfD instead of having been speedied. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• 'Do not use in articles but Undelete. I would vote conditional undeletion on TfD: that it be kept out of articlespace - but then that should be happening anyway. Septentrionalis 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - the issue about sourcing should be handled at WP:CITE. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or as a second preference, undelete and then list at TfD. As the deleter, I stand by my judgement that it is substantially similar (it just looks slightly different), but if others disagree with me, I still think that this is a template that shouldn't exist, due to the temptation of sticking it in article space. If people really want to use it, they can have it on the own user subpage. enochlau (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment and clarification. I agree that this should not be used in the main article space, but rather as an aid for directing others to the same page of search results in project-related discussions/talk pages. Idea: if you wrap class="hiddenStructure{{NAMESPACE}}" around it, nobody will be able to use it in an article. There may be instances where a search result link is approprate in an article, e.g. Google bomb, but that is clearly an exceptional case. I think we can do this, folks. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:03, Feb. 3, 2006
• Undelete and list at TfD Allow the TfD process to consider finer points we may be missing, but the template is clearly not a "substantial recreation." Xoloz 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this please and talk about it on templates for deletion it is not a recreate Yuckfoo 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD as per Xoloz et al. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• List on TFD as per many people above. Worth taking to a discussion. Proto||type 13:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete do not list - useful for discussions - do not use on article pages. Trödel•talk 15:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Template:User Antiracist hitler: Speedy deletion endorsed. 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Template:GermanGov: Kept deleted. 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
3. List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.: Original keep closure endorsed. 17:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
4. User:KJVTRUTH: kept undeleted, user subsequently blocked as sockpuppet. 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms: Moot request, kept deleted. 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
6. The Better Mod: Speedy undeleted, listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Better Mod. 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Clay Sun Union: Undeleted. As the deletion seemed to be in error (the members were AFDed, not the band) there is no reason for an automatic listing at AFD. It is free to be nominated by any user, however. 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Template:User no Rand: Undeleted, now listed at WP:TFD. 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Good Thing, Bad Thing, Right Thing, and Wrong Thing: Latter 2 merged. Any other issues are a content dispute, not DRV. 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
10. List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names: Moved to wikipedia namespace. 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) R. Fiend
    • Isn't it 25 Overturn/Relist and only 14 Endorse ? -- User:Docu
11. Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer: Kept deleted. 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Vampires F.C.: rdirected to Crouch End Vampires F.C.. 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
13. London Welsh F.C.: Undeleted (consensus seemed to be AFD was not automatically warranted, but it is open to an AFD nomination by any user). 17:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Lee Hotti: Kept deleted (protected). 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Gazeebow Unit: Kept deleted. 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Patrick Alexander (cartoonist): Kept deleted. 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Mesh Computers: Undeleted; out of process deletion, relisted for deletion and deleted on same day, should have remained relisted for five days per Wikipedia:Deletion process 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
18. SNK Boss Syndrome: Kept deleted. 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Colony5: Undeleted, currently listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colony5 (2nd nomination). 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani : former redirected, latter kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
21. David Dom and Karayana , overturned, narrowly missed deletion, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karayana and David Dom. - 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Male bikini-wearing speedily kept deleted. - 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Philosophy of computer science, kept deleted. - 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Template:User_ku_klux, kept deleted. - 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, kept deleted and saw several like it sent to AfD. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Category:Lists in the Wikipedia namespace, kept deleted. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Template:User homosexual-no, kept deleted but with recomendations that people use TfD in future. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
29. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 January 2006 (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.

Many administrators will honour requests to provide the content of a deleted article if asked politely. See Category:User undeletion.

Masud Rahman

A page was created in my name referring to me, and to some false and non-notable achievements, by a some people who knew me, as a joke. I was not aware of this page or its contents at any time while it existed, and have recently read the AfD page, which seems to contain hints as to what the page may have contained during its brief existence. Since there were some personal comments about me on the page, I am very interested to see the page; and it's various histories. This is a request for temporary undeletion.

Many thanks. Masud 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems harmless enough, I undeleted and moved it to your user space at User:Masudr/Masud Rahman. Let us know if you want it deleted again but I doubt anyone minds if you keep it around. - Haukur 11:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd like to maintain the content within my user page, can I simply remove the AfD (VfD) box? Masud 14:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Proto||type 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

moshzilla

I would like to have this undeleted mometarely. I started the internet phenomena, moshzilla, and own moshzilla.com, I would like to move the contents of the moshzilla entry onto the moshzilla site if possible. User:joshhighland

• Comment - Moved to content review section. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, no. Since you don't own the copyright to the material and have never edited the article, you can't drop the material into a website that does not use the GFDL to license its content. -Splash^talk 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to stop him having a section of his site which is GFDL and which contains the cotnent from the deletd article. There's no shortage of mirrors who do this sort of thing, and as long as it's properly attributed and stated that it is GFDL it's fine. -- AJR | Talk 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For the record, this user has a copy of the deleted content. He/she used it on 9 Feb 06 to recreate the deleted page. I am having trouble assuming good faith about this request. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2006 (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.

Decisions to be reviewed

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 July 15}}</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 July 15}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 15|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.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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 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".

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Temporary_undeletion

Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default.

11 February 2006

Heathian anarchism

This article's final AfD tally was 3 deletes, 2 merges closely edging on delete, and 1 keep, from the author of the page. The final decision made was to "keep", which I don't understand. Since the best merge suggestion offered is to an article that does not exist, and what is presently in this article would be insufficient for creating a new article, we're stuck in the meantime with what is a completely OR page. My suggestion would be either to delete it or move it to the creator's userspace. In the meantime we're legitimizing a topic that doesn't even exist. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Relist - true, the only person asking for it to be kept as-is was the creator, and most others wanted it gone or gone, but there were not many contributors overall. I would have relisted for further debate rather than closing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This approach to relisting is becoming a little concerning to me. Having "no consensus" as an outcome (call it keep if you prefer) is absolutely fine. People seem to be relisting enthusiastically just because there was no Absolute Outcome in the hopes of generating one. If that is what an editor wants, then they should carry out the relisting as an editorial matter, and not in the manner used on DRV which implies a rejection of the earlier debate's closure. -Splash^talk 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. I agree up to a point, but I don't think a couple of comments is sufficient to determine consensus, and I don't see why it should be a problem relisting where there are very few comments. Relisting because it's 20k/20m/20d is clearly nonsensical, but I don't recall that happening. I've seen several which have been kept after relisting when closing as delete would have been valid (a couple of deletes and nothing else). But I am becoming somewhat disillusioned with the whole process - nominate a web forum and every member will be along to vote keep, nominate a school at your peril, however bad the article and no matter that it is a commercial enterprise not a school, and so on. Ah well. I'm sure that once the Gastrich-induced cynicism has worn off I'll return to my usual sunny self, and maybe it'll improve with the Pareto effect of {PROD}. There is a slightly more pressing problem with this article: with zero Googles and no cited sources it appears to be unverifiable. Where's that list of templates? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Getting 6 participants is more than substantially many debates (see WP:AFD100 for statistics on this). AfD is (still) overloaded, and sending minor articles back there just because we hope for 7 participants rather than 6 seems a little, well, pointless. -Splash^talk 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, clearly. This doesn't even shake a finger at a consensus to delete. There is no need to relist since there is clearly discussion to be had elsewhere about what, precisely, should be done. Having 6 people in an AfD is enough, and there is no quorum for AfD and there never has been. The only reason to relist would be a lack of participation or a supposition that relisting would produce a different result because of problems with the first listing. Noone cites any problems with this listing, apart from its outcome, and so I see neither a case to relist nor overturn. -Splash^talk 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe if you're just looking at the numbers, and not reading what people have to say. There does appear to be a 5-1 consensus that this article should no longer exist. That it's divided by people who think it needs to be merged and to be deleted seems irrelevant. Sarge Baldy 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to what? To the question of deletion or not, no. To the question of exactly what state it should remain is as a result of the AfD? Largely, yes. People can decide whether to keep, merge or redirect for themselves in the case of an unclear AfD, and it is not the business of DRV to direct them on that. -Splash^talk 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it needs to be deleted. I'm saying it shouldn't continue to exist where it does now. "Heathian anarchism" is a term coined by the creator of the article. And right now we're pretending it exists. Sarge Baldy 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is for what we have the Talk pages of the article and its editors. -Splash^talk 21:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• What's there to discuss? This article is about something that doesn't exist. He might as well have written at the top of the page that the term was coined by Hogeye of Wikipedia. If you think that's a stretch, he actually DID put his name as a source in the article on anarchist economics. Sarge Baldy 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, you might wait a short while in case something turns up and then make a fresh AfD nomination with a much more compelling nomination than last time. "Not notable", whilst shorthand for a number of things is much less likely to win favour than "doesn't exist", "unverifiable", "original research" etc. Also, you did not at any point return to that AfD during the debate — it's necessary to do so when things aren't going as you intended, in much the way that you have intervened here. However, DRV is unlikely to make a purely content based decision and is equally unlikely, if not more so, to overturn that AfD debate into a deletion. -Splash^talk 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Though this may not be the place for editorial comments, why not just move to Spencer Heath and edit accordingly? -R. fiend 21:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't mind doing that, the major problem is that it is completely unreferenced and unverifiable as-is, that won't be fixed by moving it. But that's a content dispute, so I've taken it to the Talk page. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's not completely unreferenced, as it names the book from which this guy's philosophy is outlined: Citadel, Market and Altar. The problem I just discovered is that that book gets 101 unique googles (pretty small for a book that's allegedly the foundation of a notable philosophy) and doesn't seem to appear at Amazon. Is this guy just another self-published crank? I think we should move it (as proposed in the AFD), re-examine, and perhaps re-AFD, based on any new facts that come to life (such as "this guy is a self-published crank", if it turns out to be true). We shoudl also keep in mind that the anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, etc pages have been the scene of ongoing edit wars for eons, and POV, forking, and the like fly about all over the place. anythign connected to these topics deserves special scrutiny. -R. fiend 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The content dispute, and under what name the article should end up residing, should be settled on the talk page, not AfD or here on DRV. There was clearly no consensus to delete... I said keep because of a few reasons, but ultimately does it make a difference here if I said "keep" or "no consensus"? --W.marsh 21:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

List of software companies

Was deleted on 6 Jan, 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_software_companies). This was a useful list where software companies were sectioned based on country. I had created it way back in 2003 and was using it as a reference ever since. Today I went to the page to find out the list of software companies of a particular country, and found that it has been deleted. There is no corresponding Category on "software companies by country" either. I understand that all standalone lists have to be moved into categories, but since we don't have the "Category:Software companies by country" category yet, I request to undelete the list so that the category can be created using the info available in the list. Jay 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds convincing, undelete. Pcb21 Pete 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, aren't you an admin? Can't you just access the article yourself? Johnleemk | Talk 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just one question: if there is a need to sub-categorise by country (which I don't dispute), surely it's easiest just to work through the existing category? Half the companies on the original list were redlinked anyway. Not that I have a problem with undeleting this and moving to a user subpage, I'm just puzzled as to why there's a need. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I cannot imagine what possessed anyone to list this article for deletion, or the closing administrator to delete it. --Tony Sidaway 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete so we can categorize the companies, then can be brought back to AfD after categorizing takes place if someone so chooses, as list will probably not be useful after category is created. VegaDark 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-UN

This user does not support the United Nations.

This template was deleted despite an overwhelming number of the votes to keep (see here). What's more, after all votes were submitted, the Admin who started the deletion process, User:MarkSweep wrote, "The result of the debate was moot. This template was speedy deleted." An admin is implying that the process was irrelevant. I would like the deletion of this template to be reviewed and know if User:MarkSweep's conduct was appropriate for an admin.

• Comment I've userfied both boxes - see User:Userboxes/Anti-UN and User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU. Thus, CSD T1 no longer applies, but users who wish to either subst: or transclude this content may still do so. (See the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Use of userboxes). This was done in order to avoid the necessity for another lengthy debate rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Can we please avoid yet more tedious, repetitious discussions and get back to writing an encyclopedia? I'm getting sick and tired of this nonsense. Frankly, Wikipedia just isn't fun any more, and I'm not sure how much of my time I want to devote to a community divided by such petty squabbling. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore in the user namespace. I like Crotalus horridus' compromise. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Such an action should be taken on an en masse scale, and after achieving general consensus for such a move (I'd endorse it, for one), not in a piecemeal, haphazard fashion, and such a decision should be reached on the TfD debate, not on Deletion Review (which is only here to review the deletion, not to recommend third options that should really have been discussed on the TfD). Otherwise, we risk not only causing more chaos and disorder as anti-userbox admins get out of control with userfying whatever templates they happen to personally dislike, but also risk causing a lot of unnecessary revert-wars and POV problems: why does "anti-UN" need to be userfied, while "pro-UN" is perfectly fine on the templatespace? The only message that sends is that Wikipedia itself is pro-UN. We need to make such a move for all user templates, or for none of them. I'd support doing it for them all, but this is not really the correct place to start such a large-scale move. All we're discussing here is this TfD and current policy, which quite clearly shows that the speedy-deletion was out-of-line and that a full TfD discussion is in order (even if the ultimate result of that discussion is userfication). That's the only way to keep both sides of the matter happy, and to make it clear that users' opinions aren't being ignored and their views arbitrarily and unnecessarily censored. Speedy-deletes like this serve only to escalate the disunity and factionalization of the community, and should not be tolerated even if the userbox itself merits deletion. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV.--MONGO 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Then the correct vote would be "Overturn" and then, once it is overturned, to vote "Delete" (or even "Speedy Delete", if you think it's both inflammatory and divisive, not merely "unhelpful") on the reopened TfD vote. This is a discussion of process, not of the template itself: if the template isn't clearly and obviously meriting speedy-delete at this point in time (and it's not, as shown by the number of "overturn" votes here and "keep" votes there), it deserves a full-run of discussion to iron out the details and discuss this matter to a satisfying amount. Stifling debate here won't serve either side's interest (and will only serve to further polarize the community, emphasizing that there are two distinct sides and that one has no interest in listening or responding to what the other has to say). Discussion keeps a consensus-run editing community healthy, and forbidding a full discussion over this matter by endorsing out-of-process, unilateral, undiscussed speedy-deletion will only cause more damage and discontent amont Wikipedia's valuable editors, thus ultimately harming the encyclopedia. What's so wrong with letting the TfD run its course? -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per TfD. While I'm not a fan of userboxes, especially this one (see my sig), consensus indicates that they want it to stay. I would vote delete on a TfD but I wouldn't delete against the wishes of the community. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and block MarkSweep for repeated disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We don't need a mechanism by which editors with a pronounced anti-UN (or anti-anything) bias can contact one another and organise. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The purpose of these templates is to self-identify and show in a clear way what biases a user has, not to further an agenda or "contact one another and organise" (which I've always thought was a rather flimsy, and somewhat melodramatic and paranoid (and thus not assuming good faith), argument against userboxes; it will be rather obvious if anyone attempts to use userboxes to stuff votes or "cluster" and factionalize, so it will be (and has been) both very rare and pretty easy to prevent). We have "anti-racism" templates; are those equally inappropriate? Why is it perfectly fine to support the UN, but not to say that you don't support the UN—or any other major, global organization for that matter? Isn't it much more POVed to say "Wikipedians can only be positive of the UN" than it is to let people identify where they stand on the matter? Additionally, are you basing your vote on the speedy-deletion criterion and current Wikipedia userbox policies, and on careful analysis of the actual discussion preceding this out-of-process speedy-delete, or are you basing it on your personal opposition to anti-UN (or "anti-anything") sentiment? We have "anti-Marxist" userboxes that noone seems to object to. Is there anything really so wrong with an "anti-" opinion, as long as it's directed at a philosophy or organization or major public figure that is relevant to the POVs and beliefs of the Wikipedian? I don't see what the big deal is. There's little difference between the pro-side and the anti-side of a debate; it's merely a matter of terminology. Two sides of the same coin. Censoring one side and thus implicitly endorsing the other side is a bad practice that will get Wikipedia in more trouble than if it simply lets these things be. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Inappropriate; TfD is not strictly a vote; and most of the "keep" "votes" did not conform to TfD "voting"/discussion policy. Monicasdude 16:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Correct, "TfD is not strictly a vote"—it's a discussion. Noone made an argument for why the template should be speedy-deleted, and obviously many people disagree that this template qualifies as "divisive" and "inflammatory", so even if you feel personally that it is both divisive and inflammatory, the correct place to discuss those matters is on a TfD. The job of an admin who is closing a TfD vote is to interpret the discussion, not to voice his own opinion in complete, unilateral disregard for the entire discussion! If you're an admin and believe strongly that a template currently undergoing TfD discussion should be speedy-deleted, then the correct course of action is to vote, not to immediately speedy-delete it without any support whatsoever and without anyone having even brought up the matter of whether speedy-delete is applicable here (which it happens to not be, incidentally; this template is not strictly "inflammatory", it's quite courteous and inoffensive). Even if the TfD keep votes were accompanied by flawed reasoning, the correct response is to point out that flaw by responding to the votes, not to simply ignore them all! and assume that dozens of users are ignorant, irrelevant cattle and only your opinion is relevant, not anyone else's. All of this should be discussed in the TfD, and then it should be speedy-deleted if and only if the arguments for it end up being more markedly compelling than the arguments against it. TfD is not a vote, but it's also not a battle over which side has the most admins: it's. a. discussion. So let's discuss whether it qualifies for a speedy-delete (or a delete at all), not bully each other around with admin-privilege abuses. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted POV template. --Doc ^ask? 16:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is no current speedy-deletion criterion that says "all POV usertemplates should be speedy-deleted", thus your vote currently seems to rely on faulty logic that is based in personal opinion rather than interpretation of any policy; if this is not the case and you are alluding to some specific, approved policy that endorses speedy-deleting all POVed userboxes, I apologize. But that is not currently the case. Userboxes are used in userspace, not articlespace, and thus do not fall under the "NPOV" requirements (or the NOR requirements, for that matter, which would require the deletion of all userspace) for the same reason Usercategories (Category:Wikipedians) don't. You are trying to circumvent process in this case on a technicality, adhering to the letter rather than to the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. -Silence 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn and Relist. This is not a review of the template, it's a review of the process, and it is absurdly clear that this deletion was very poorly-done: see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_Iraq_War_2 (and the Anti-UN vote, of course) for details. Not a single user had voted for "speedy delete", no one had brought up why and how it might be "divisive" or "inflammatory", there was at the time a consensus to keep, the discussion had barely just begun (with a whole week of time for people who felt the template merited deletion to discuss the matter), and even the people who voted "delete" did not vote "speedy". If those voters were mistaken or misinformed or unaware of the new deletion criterion, then the correct next step to take would be to vote and explain your view, arguing for speedy-delete and then waiting to see if your argument gains support or if valid counter-arguments are made—and there are certainly some very strong possible arguments one could make to demonstrate that "This user does not support the United Nations" is probably not all that divisive, and certainly not in any way inflammatory! It's practically stale, it's so impersonal! The new speedy-delete criterion was created for templates like "This user hates Jews" or "This user wants all Americans to die", not grey-area templates like "This user opposes the UN" (which was only created as a balance to "This user supports the UN", to appease NPOV and show that Wikipedia isn't exclusively for UN supporters!; if this template is 'divisive', than that one surely has to be equally divisive, unless it would be OK to say 'This user supports capital punishment' but not 'This user opposes capital punishment')! So, while it might possibly be applied to this template, certainly it's not such a clear-cut case that we can't even permit any discussion of the matter, but just have to shove all the dozens of dissenting opinions into the gutter without so much as a response, just with a dismissive "everyone else is wrong"! What on earth does that accomplish, sacrificing users' faith in the system and in Wikipedia's openness just to get a dinky little userbox deleted today rather than four days from now? Somewhat of a pyrrhic victory, even for those who hate all userboxes; process is only a means to an end, sure, but in this case ignoring process (and ignoring, not just all votes, but all discussion, in favor of immediate speedy-delete) is more damaging to the goals of Wikipedia than, as it can only serve to alienate and further divide and factionalize this community. For Wikigod's sake, let the TfD discussion run its course! What's so terrible and unacceptable about letting people talk this over? -Silence 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist Expressing a common POV in dispassionate language is not inflammatory, as I understand the meaning of that word. Saying "User opposes X", where X is the normal name of a major political entity or cause is always fine. Saying "User opposes Nazi, slimy, evil, X" is not. It's simple. This user emphatically supports the UN, incidentally. Xoloz 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist POV is not illegal, and speedying during a TfD is really annoying. If the discussion is going towards "delete" why not let it run? If it is going to "keep" then the speedying is completely inappropriate! Stop speedying everything!. There is no point of having a TfD discussion if people are just going to speedy things in the middle of it - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive, and now clarified as appropriate to speedy by the new criteria as per Jimbo's dictum. --Improv 18:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subjects. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This template neither criticizes nor disparages its subject. Read the contents: "This user does not support the United Nations." It's a statement of fact (the fact being what the user's opinion of the UN is) to make explicit a POV of the user in order, and is perfectly civil and entirely non-inflammatory. More importantly, even if you want it deleted, the speedy-delete was out of line and violated consensus and the TfD discussion, misinterpreted TfD policy (assuming that "inflammatory" simply means "not positive", which is obviously not the case), and contradicts common sense. If I wanted this template deleted, I'd vote to "undelete and relist" and then vote to "delete" at the relisted TfD; not even giving it a TfD discussion even though it's truly not an especially objectionable template (for god's sake, we gave "This user hates Jews" an entire week of in-depth discussion!) is clearly unacceptable. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. The Land 19:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• There are plenty of ways. They make explicit a POV of the user, allowing others to better understand that user's perspective and basic assumptions. They allow users to self-express their views in a constructive way that does not damage the encyclopedia, encouraging them to use their userpage to voice their opinions rather than using articles to voice their opinions (and push their POVs). They make it clear that Wikipedia does itself have a POV on these issues (a problem that arises from letting people have a "This user supports the UN" and forbidding them to have a "This user does not support the UN" template, implying that Wikipedia itself supports the UN and does not condone anti-UN (or even non-pro-UN, since the template's content says "doesn't support", not "opposes"!) sentiment). If the problem here is with POV templates, then both sides of the POV should be deleted, not just one; but even if that's so, it should be deleted through the TfD process, not through unilateral vigilante action in complete disregard for both consensus and discussion. This is about an improper, admin-privileges-abusing speedydelete that misinterpreted the meaning of the word "inflammatory", not about the userbox itself, which is what the TfD discussion is there for. Even if you personally think all userboxes should be deleted, or all anti-X templates should be deleted, that is not current Wikipedia policy, and voting based on that rather than on an interpretation of the vote, discussion, speedy-delete action, and current TfD policies is inappropriate. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why bother? "Consensus" is the biggest joke at wikipedia. Vote any way you want, discuss until the cows come home. If King Jimbo wants it gone, it's gone, and will stay gone, regardless of what anyone else thinks. --Kbdank71 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, not useful, carefully enumerating things you don't like, for no apparent reason, is effectively trolling, in that it's only plausible effect is to draw a negative response from others. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The problem here is that if there was a major global movement that strongly opposed the UN as its foundational message, let's say "Movement X", and we made a userbox saying "This user supports Movement X", an "only pro-X, no anti-X!" belief would cause you to let the userbox remain, and would make it impossible to in any way criticize Movement X ("This user doesn't support Movement X" would be deleted), even though Movement X would be essentially synonymous with "not supporting the UN". In other words, the only difference between pro-X and anti-X is terminological and semantic; speedy-deleting something just because it says "...doesn't support..." is absurd. Not supporting, or opposing, an organization can be just as significant and noteworthy. For example, "atheism" is defined in the negative; it is a movement that is inherently a lack of something. If we didn't have a word for "atheism" and just had to say "This user doesn't support God" or similar, would that suddenly change it from being appropriate to inappropriate? Entirely on a semantic basis? There shouldn't have to be a word or term for opposing something just to allow there to be a userbox; the basis should be whether the sentiment is noteworthy ("This user doesn't support his best friend Greg" wouldn't be a noteworthy enough view to bother with a general-use userbox), meaningful ("This user doesn't support parsley" wouldn't provide a meaningful enough distinction between users), and non-abusive ("This user doesn't support the UN because they're assholes" would be incivil and would qualify for 'inflammatory and divisive' deletion, unlike this template). There's simply no reason to speedy-delete this template, anymore than there is to do so for any other user-template; as such, even if it's deleted, it should not be speedy-deleted, or at least not speedy-deleted until that option has been discussed on TfD, with pros and cons being provided for both options. There's no justification for tossing aside TfD here, as there's obviously a significant enough dispute over whether this truly qualifies for speedy-deletion to permit a TfD discussion over that option, which is what was happening just fine, and should have continued to happen, and still should be permitted to happen. Otherwise, the entire VfD process is meaningless and arbitrary, the deletion criteria are a joke, and whether or not something is deleted is the result of a coin-flip, not of a reasoned, in-depth discussion. Sad. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ignore. The userbox war has spread to every corner of Wikipedia, and bogged down every process it's come near. I say wait until there is a workable consensus on the whole issue before deleting, undeleting, nominating, using, editing or even reading any userboxen. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is not about the userbox war. The situation would be the same for any template: speedy-deletion should not be a tool for admins to use to circumvent any meaningful discussion and avoid having to bother to try to convince anyone else that they're right when they know they already are; the discussion clearly did not indicate a "speedy-delete", and if the voters were misinformed or their discussion faulty, a counter-argument should have been made before the discussion was abruptly cut off. The same would be true for any template, article, category, or page at all. Discussion is helpful, not harmful. I agree with you that we should stop bothering with these ridiculous individual nominations until a policy exists for userboxes, but that doesn't mean we should let admins abuse the system to arbitrarily attack specific templates that have a strong consensus for "keep". This is about the TfD process, not about userboxes, as Deletion Review is a review of the deletion process, discussion, policies, etc. more than of the specific page that happened to be deleted. -Silence 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Anti-ACLU

This user does not support the ACLU.

This template was deleted despite an overwhelming number of the votes to keep (see here). What's more, after all votes were submitted, the Admin who started the deletion process, User:MarkSweep wrote, "The result of the debate was moot. This template was speedy deleted." An admin is implying that the process was irrelevant. I would like the deletion of this template to be reviewed and know if User:MarkSweep's conduct was appropriate for an admin.

• Comment I've userfied both boxes - see User:Userboxes/Anti-UN and User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU. Thus, CSD T1 no longer applies, but users who wish to either subst: or transclude this content may still do so. (See the proposed policy at Wikipedia:Use of userboxes). This was done in order to avoid the necessity for another lengthy debate rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Can we please avoid yet more tedious, repetitious discussions and get back to writing an encyclopedia? I'm getting sick and tired of this nonsense. Frankly, Wikipedia just isn't fun any more, and I'm not sure how much of my time I want to devote to a community divided by such petty squabbling. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore in the user namespace. I like Crotalus horridus' compromise. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV.--MONGO 10:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per TfD. While I'm not a fan of userboxes, especially this one (see my sig), consensus indicates that they want it to stay. I would vote delete on a TfD but I wouldn't delete against the wishes of the community. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and block MarkSweep for repeated disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We don't need a mechanism by which editors with a pronounced anti-ACLU (or anti-anything) bias can contact one another and organise. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Inappropriate; TfD is not strictly a vote; and most of the "keep" "votes" did not conform to TfD "voting"/discussion policy. Monicasdude 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted POV template. --Doc ^ask? 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist Expressing a common POV in dispassionate language is not inflammatory, as I understand the meaning of that word. Saying "User opposes X", where X is the normal name of a major political entity or cause is always fine. Saying "User opposes Nazi, slimy, evil, X" is not. It's simple. By the way, I am a Guardian of Liberty with the ACLU (I've named them in my will), and I accept this as perfectly legitimate. Xoloz 17:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn and Relist. TfD is a discussion, not a vote; ergo, since the discussion was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping at the time, since just about none of the arguments of the keep-voters had yet been addressed, and since nobody in the entire discussion had at the time suggested a "speedy-delete" or argued for why the template might be both "inflammatory" and "divisive" (the latter, certainly, seems like a very, very big stretch, and an extremely loose interpretation of "inflammatory" that seems contradictory to Jimbo's comments and the purpose of the new speedy-deletion criterion), it was completely inappropriate to throw all of the discussion into the gutter without even taking the time to first recommend that it be speedy-deleted and see what counter-arguments people could supply, then decide whether to delete or not! This is clear abuse of process, and clearly will cause more harm to Wikipedia than if we simply let the TfD discussion run its course and didn't involve this whole other ridiculous extra level of bureaucracy and controversy just because some admins don't feel like bothering to talk to the lowly non-admins who voted before annihilating a template they personally dislike! If the template said "This user thinks that the ACLU is a scumsucking Satanspawn", the speedy would be understandable; but just not supporting an organization is not "inflammatory", and even the case that it's "divisive" is not as black-and-white as its being made out to be; grey-area templates like this are exactly what TfD discussions are for, so even if you think this template should be deleted, userfied, or whatever, you should still vote to overturn this deletion and let the template be given the proper amount of time. Otherwise, we just set up a precedent where any user-template that an admin dislikes can be speedied, without providing any argument whatsoever first and completely disregarding the entire vote and discussion, making it an utter waste of time to even bother to voice your opinion or argue for your interpretation of TfD policy; you'll just be ignored if any admin disagrees with you—that admin will simply override everyone's votes rather than providing a counter-argument. TfD will change from a discussion of templates to a "which side has the most admins to muscle the other side around"; that's not a good thing. Why stir up such a hornet's-nest of contentious, divisive disputes and edit-warring over such a ridiculous matter when we could simply let the discussion over a silly old colored rectangular box-o'-POV run its course, then decide what to do? The benefits of speedy-deletion do not, in this case, outweigh the harm it will cause. -Silence 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive, harmful to the project. Stop poisoning the well. --Improv 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all templates which criticize or disparage their subject. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. The Land 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per all the above. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

10 February 2006

Montfort Realschule Zell

This article's AfD nomination had 3 delete comments and just one keep (User:Jcuk's only comment was "of course"). If we were going straight vote style that gives 75% delete. After weighting arguments and comments I'd say the deletes have it. I respect MarkGallagher's decision to keep (the article did change a bit mid-vote) and normally I'd just let it go, but I just don't like this article (admitably I am deletionist scum). BrokenSegue 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why not just relist it? Four comments is hardly a good discussion. Alternatively, try WP:PROD. --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony. {{prod}} the sucker, and you might get lucky and have it go away on its own. If someone removes the prod tag and doesn't somehow improve it, relist it. --Aaron 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it really proper to prod an article after it was AfD'd? Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#What_this_process_is_NOT_for suggets that it isn't. BrokenSegue 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The whole prod thing is sort of "in beta", and is still under discussion, so "What this process is NOT for" is still just a proposal. As such, I don't think it will hurt anything to prod this article. They need to see how {{prod}} is going to actually be used anyway, not just how editors will use it in theory. --Aaron 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• However badly the article sucks you will never get rid of it, it's a verifiable school. I'd walk away. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your probably right. It's sad that it has come to this, some people will mechanicaly vote to keep all verifiable schools. *sigh* I added the prod tag just to see. BrokenSegue 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User against Iraq War

This admin is deleting templates without a consensus for deletion and adding speedy delete tags to userboxes which are already under discussion. This has resulted in the speedy deletion of several userboxes. This is censorship and an abuse of admin power. It is vandalism, and I put up a notice on Vandalism in Progress about him, though it was removed. --Revolución (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• A recent example is Template:User against Iraq War, which was put up for TfD. Voting at time of Tony's deletion was 13 keep, 4 delete [16]. --Fang 20:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be confused about the purpose and nature of WP:TFD. It is not a vote. It is a debate. You are encouraged to provide arguments that address the deletion criteria for templates set out on WP:TFD. The majority of the "keep" opinions failed to address the criteria and thus contributed nothing to the debate. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I created that template. I have warned him several times. I do not know what to do, and since I do not have admin powers, I can not restore these templates. --Revolución (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I dare say this is a possible mis-use of admin permissions. I suggest perhaps the process for RfC should begin? ComputerJoe 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, if not a full-blown RfA. --Aaron 21:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've explained that Mark Sweep and I, both administrators, have been tagging and deleting some of the more inflammatory userbox templates under the T1 speedy criterion. It seems reasonable to me that if two administrators both arrive at a good faith determination that a template is clearly inflammatory and divisive, it's reasonable grounds for speedy deletion on the basis that, in Jimbo Wales' words, they are "bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please explain how "This user opposes the Iraq War and advocates an immediate troop withdrawal" qualifies as inflammatory. --Revolución (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It's needlessly divisive. It is entirely based on real-life politics that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. All it does is divide Wikipedians by opinions that are irrelevant and orthogonal to the purpose of Writing An Encyclopedia. Especially the "advocates" bit is a violation of WP:NOT:soapbox. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't. Just follow Tony's lead and IAR by making it again, both in a subst and a template. Karmafist 20:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I followed your advice and recreated the template. A few seconds later, it was instantly deleted. --Revolución (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • But not by me. Spooky, huh? --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Dismiss - DRV is not a place for mini RfCs. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Dismiss per Mr. Stewart. Summary deletion of templates is occasionally justified, per Jimbo. If one disagrees with a specific case, bring the case here. If Revolucion's description of the Iraq userbox is correct, I would be more inclined to overturn than I was in the case of "USA Police State." Xoloz 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The complaint has now changed to consider the template itself, not Mr. Sidaway. Undelete Allow TfD. Template is political, probably unwise, but not blatantly inflammatory. It deserves normal process. Xoloz 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the Iraq War template and allow full hearing at TfD. It is not "blantantly inflamatory", as evidenced by several good-faith keep votes before the TfD was interrupted. Thryduulf 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Uphold deletion. The template is divisive and unsuitable content for a userpage. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, nor a free webspace provider. Physchim62 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete IMMEDIATELY No consensus was reached upon the deletion. If administrators will continue to implement a "delete first, think later" policy, Wikipedia will indeed resemble a police state. I refuse to acknowledge "Jimbo said so" as a valid argument for deletion. Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, but WE are the community. WE build the encyclopedia, so WE decide. Vargher 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Stirring words from an editor with precisely five article edits and seven talk page comments in three weeks. In the same time, Mr Vargher has accomplished over sixty edits to his own user page. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. It is beyond obvious these admins are falsely claiming "speedy delete" because they're overwhelmingly losing the discussions. --Aaron 21:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I can see no reasonable connection between this template and our goal of writing an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TFD. Many user templates have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, that isn't a reason to speedy it. --Kbdank71 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nominator's apparent personal crusade against Tony Sidaway is growing tiresome. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't personal. This is about abuse of admin power. --Revolución (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See this. But enough here; please continue this at my talk if you wish to. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. We were forming a concensus about this template when Tony deleted it. Let the TfD process go forward. --Fang Aili 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Voting in a vacuum I'd support this without having to see the content. The title itself is clearly divisive, presenting an obvious POV without telling others "I can help you based on my expertise." But I must say... admins should remember how much it sucks for a non-admin to see admins making sudden decisions out of process. It seems TonyS deleted this, and I have voted in favour of his deletions here, but I do want to emphasize how annoying it is when fD gets ignored because some admin was "in that mood." It really does suck. You vote yay or nay on some fD page (or maybe you're just watching) and then you realize an admin can speedy and haul it over here (where, largely, only admins comment) regardless of any emerging consensus on the relevant fD page. Thus, I don't think I support Revolucion's ideas here, but I see his frustration. Marskell 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The concensus apparently reached was "speedy delete". However, looking through the discussion, nobody had suggested a speedy deletion, and that the huge majority of people voted keep. If this is going to happen all the time, why dont we just abolish discussions? - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's coming, Dussst. Mark my words; it's only a matter of time. --Aaron 22:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted when discussions go directly against policy then admins have the responsibility to follow the policy even if that is out of process - process is to support policy not create an environment to individually ignore/overturn policy when it suits a specific group of users. Trödel•talk 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and RFC the admins responsible what is the point of having a Tfd process if admins just arbitrarily delete templates they happen to dislike Cynical 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted TfD is broken. Speedies are exceptional deletion criteria that do not require to establish consensus. --Doc ^ask? 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't go there. Wait until the userbox debate is finished, then consider them all en bloc. This whole busienss is taking over the entire project. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've created the template in my own userspace. The fascists here will probably try to censor it again, but I won't let them. --Revolución (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as per Vargher Mike McGregor (Can) 23:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire, as per Vargher. Five article edits and 60 user page edits illustrate his misconceptions: Wikipedia is NOT a blog, free hosting service, or billboard for promoting one's personal beliefs. MySpace and Blogspot are that-a-way if that's what he wants; this place is supposed to be a freaking encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone's in the dark. The entire WP:UBX project is littered with personal beliefs! Just look at the Politics and Beliefs section, with userboxes advocating Taiwan independence and various other little things. Userboxes are the expression of our personal beliefs, and have caught on like wildifre on many user pages. Clearly the "this is an encyclopeida" is moot, as is the personal attack against the user in question. - Hbdragon88 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone's in the dark. True -- but it's not me. Check out User:Vargher's contributions: compare all edits with article edits: Time and edits enough to create/install 79 or so user boxes, and only enough time for 5 article edits. Do you understand the point, or are diagrams required?
    • The entire WP:UBX project is littered with personal beliefs! I need to ask: did the "Mom! [my brother/my sister/the next-door-neighbor's kid] does it!" rationale work when you were a child? No? Why should it work now? --Calton | Talk 06:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The sheer number of userboxes on UBX shows that userboxes are here to stay and that they are being used as a medium to express opinions. You wrote that Wikipedia is not a "billboard for promoting one's personal beliefs." The userboxes project proves otherwise. Don't throw the "They do it!" argument at me. - Hbdragon88 21:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid deletion per CSD T.1. Ignore all opinions here based on out-of-process arguments such as "censorship" or "free speech". --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Ban MarkSweep, Tony Sidaway, and Parham permanently for engaging in continued disruption via edit war, right-wing POV-pimping, vandalism and WP:POINT violations. And by the way, Stormfront is that-a-way. --Daniel 02:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  It's not right wing pv pimping... he has gone after boxes that the right would support as well. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  If "he" in this instance refers to me, my political compass readings are as follows:

  Economic Left/Right: -8.75

  Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

  The accusations of edit warring, vandalism and whatnot are equally fatuous. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn. I do not agree with the message, but I will fight for the right to say it. IMHO I think speedy is beng abused by admins who can't get consensus. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong, Emphatic Overturn - The constant speedy deletion and vandalism of userboxes bya small number of admins has got to stop, and it has to stop immediately. This template must be restored and an RfC started. This is getting to the point, or perhaps beyond the point, of de-adminship for trolling and incessant WP:POINT violations. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all user boxes which disparage or criticize their subject. Needlessly divisive and inflammatory. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted the deletion of this template WAS disruption of Wikipedia, however this userbox sucks and I almost deleted it myself when I saw it on TfD.  Grue  07:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion This is hilarious. 1) I'm one of the ones who should feel inflamed and felt cut off from his fellow wikipedian by this "inflammatory and divisive" template because I totally disagree with it. The only thing is...I'M NOT! I enjoy hearing a opposite point of view and respect those who have them. I wish people would stop chicken-littling that wikipedia is going to end if people have POV's on their user pages. Edit wars don't start over that, they start over what's in ARTICLES. 2) Although I personally think free speech is a good enough reason to keep, I'm one of the few people who posted what I think are "wikipedia project-related" reasons why these templates are good, which User:MarkSweep "swept under the rug" by not responding. I said, "this template lets users know you have a strong personal opinion regarding a subject, that you may be interested in editing articles related to it, and may be source of information regarding what adherents to that opinion believe." 3) I say deleting these templates is moot because it's just a big exercise in masturbation. Your big reason for deleting them is that you don't want "divisive, inflammatory POV" on userpages? Well, if you delete them, people will just use the raw code (or prose!) to recreate them on their userpages. What then? Lawyer2b 07:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I can't help but chuckle. Those Admins who want all these "nasty POV Templates" deleted to keep the wikicommunity together coudln't have created more bitterness and division with their actions if they tried. Pray tell gentlemen...will the beatings continue until morale improves? Lawyer2b 08:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore in the user namespace. (Second choice: Keep deleted.) I like Crotalus horridus' compromise that was used in some of the other DRV debates. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV.--MONGO 10:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete.helohe (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted POV template. --Doc ^ask? 16:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn and Relist. This is not a review of the template, it's a review of the process; TfD is for discussion of whether templates should be deleted, and Deletion Review is for reviewing whether the deletion was merited at that point of time or not, not as a way to hide TfD revotes from the majority of voters whenever an admin gets frisky. It is absurdly clear that this deletion was very poorly-done: see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_against_Iraq_War_2 for details. Not a single user had voted for "speedy delete", no one had brought up why and how it might be "divisive" or "inflammatory", there was a large consensus to keep, and even the people who voted "delete" did not vote "speedy". If those voters were mistaken or misinformed or unaware of the , then the correct next step to take would be to vote and explain your view, arguing for speedy-delete and then waiting to see if your argument gains support. It is not to take abrupt and callously dismissive unilateral action, which has infinitely more potential to be divisive and offensive to the majority of users than some dinky little userbox ever could. What's going to drive valuable editors away is abuse of process like this and admins' apathy to it (as demonstrated by the number of "endorse" votes here), not ridiculous brightly-colored rectangles. Even if you believe this should be deleted (in fact, I personally wouldn't really mind such an outcome, after the TfD runs its course!), you should vote to overturn this so it can be given its proper length of time; if you believe it to be divisive and inflammatory (which a large number of people clearly do not, so this speedy-delete is disputed and merits a full vote!), then explain why. Whatever happened to these things being discussions rather than votes? Instead, it seems now that they're neither: both the votes themselves and the contents of the TfD are being completely disregarded simply because an admin disagrees with them (but apparently doesn't have enough respect for any of the voters to reply to their points and form a counter-argument, rather than using force to silence them). Pointless, controversial speedy-deletes like this are making the entire TfD process look like a silly little diversion for non-admins to waste their time on while admins just speedy-del whatever the hell they feel like rather than voting or commenting. It's contributing much more to the increasingly hostile, aggressive, and intolerant atmosphere around here than the userboxes themselves are! -Silence 16:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive, this is not the place. --Improv 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. Furthermore, people who go round calling their opponents 'fascists' in this sort of debate do nothing to help their own cause. The Land 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User USA Police State

Taxman (talk · contribs) deleted it without a consensus. If I counted right, there are 29 keep votes and 18 delete votes (correct me if I missed some for either keep or delete). --Revolución (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• As an ardent opponent of this twit person, I do fear my country may become a police-state, but this template is clearly inflammatory. Summary deletion is appropriate, and I endorse it. (Note that I have no opinion on userboxes generally, working case-by-case.) Xoloz 19:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Just recreate it. Only this time make a subst and a template. If certain people want to ignore rules, it's only a matter of time before everybody does. Karmafist 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously, what do you think that is going to help? - Taxman ^Talk 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Actually I restored it upon seeing the discussion. I stand by it clearly meeting the speedy deletion criteria, but more importantly, it having no positive value for Wikipedia. - Taxman ^Talk 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I see that this is also one of my speedies. Both MarkSweep and I tagged it at various times, and Taxman and I deleted it at different times. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Uphold deletion. The template is divisive and unsuitable content for a userpage. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, nor a free webspace provider. Physchim62 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete IMMEDIATELY No consensus was reached upon the deletion. If administrators will continue to implement a "delete first, think later" policy, Wikipedia will indeed resemble a police state. I refuse to acknowledge "Jimbo said so" as a valid argument for deletion. Jimbo Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, but WE are the community. WE build the encyclopedia, so WE decide. Vargher 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I can see no reasonable connection between this template and our goal of writing an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, don't think think this is irrelevent? The question here is if the template was deleted correctly, and if not, whether it should be relisted. This template is one of many on the Userboxes project. The entire project could be considered to be irrelevent to writing an encyclopeida. The point I'm trying to make is that the relevence discussion and questions should be pointed there, not on a Deletion Review. - Hbdragon88 04:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TFD. Many user templates have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, that isn't a reason to speedy it. --Kbdank71 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But the speedy deletion criteria are a reason to delete it. - Taxman ^Talk 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: useless dreck. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Horrible nonsense. What is Wikipedia coming to when we need to debate whether to bin trash like this? --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Because that same argument could be used to, I don't know, close this very discussion right now as "Relist", or even "undelete". It causes wheel-wars. If that's what Wikipedia is coming to, you can have it. There are processes for a reason. Last I checked, it was King Jimbo, not King Taxman or King Tony. --Kbdank71 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Not very convincing. The template was complete dreck. It has to die; if TfD cannot do it then we speedy under T1. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • So in other words you admit that you are deliberately ignoring the Tfd just because you happen to disagree with the outcome? Cynical 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • No, there's a speedy deletion criteria that covers this. Speedy deletion trumps afd and tfd. - Taxman ^Talk 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
          • The CSD was created by rule of dictator, not by consensus. Also, it is a relatively new criterion, and it is recommended that it be used with caution, not whenever an admin feels like it. But still, it's convienent, is it not? Helps to support unilateral deletion sprees of any content any admin may find objectional. Sigh. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. We were forming a concensus about this template when Taxman deleted it. Let the TfD process go forward. --Fang Aili 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete There was no concensus met, and the discussion was going towards "keep" anyway! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The substantive debate was going towards "delete". Just because some people "voted to keep" doesn't change the fact that WP:TFD is a debate, in which participants are encouraged to put forth reasoned arguments. In fact, the instructions specifically state: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." If you choose not to participate in this debate by writing "Strong KEEP" followed by an irrelevant argument which does not address the template deletion criteria, that's entirely up to you. But don't misrepresent a bunch of irrelevant opinions as "consensus", just because they happen to include the word "keep" in boldface. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Just you think someone's argument is irrelevant, doesnt mean it is. Many of the arguments put forward good points to keeping the userbox. Either way, speedying a template during a discussion is a really stupid and annoying thing to do, I just dont see what the point it. There is a reason why we have discussions, so why delete things half way through so people can no longer vote because they cannot see it? - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony Sidaway Trödel•talk 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Dussst. This war will never end as long as admins continue to act arbitrarily. --Aaron 22:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not arbitrary when there is a specific policy that calls for doing exactly what was done. - Taxman ^Talk 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, you mean that policy that didn't exist until well after the war began? --Aaron 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • This war will never end as long as there are users who keep mistake Wikipedia for a blog, free hosting service, or billboard for promoting their personal beliefs. MySpace and Blogspot are that-a-way if that's what they want; this place is supposed to be a freaking encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, it's only effects will be divisive and inflammatory. And by the way, "Jimmy said so" is a valid argument. Rx StrangeLove 22:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Undelete as per VargheMike McGregor (Can) 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete immediately. You want to prove the USA is a police state, I guess you've already got exhibit A (e.g., a good portion of its citizens can't bear to hear anything from dissenters). Daniel 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To steal from Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right, that's not even wrong." A website having and enforcing standards is evidence of a police state? Do you even know the meaning of the term? --Calton | Talk 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per CSD T.1. Ignore all out-of-process opinions based on personal animosity, "censorship", etc. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Expedient undelete. Template was deleted out of process despite ongoing discussion on TFD. Also recommend slapping Tony with a large whale. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This comment is inappropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Delete. No explanation...just inflamatory remarks (AKA "trolling"). WP:IAR.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. IMHO I think speedy is beng abused by admins who can't get consensus. It may or may not be a police state, but a police wiki is in formation. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I feel that this one should be deleted, but it was far, far from consensus. Speedy deletion is not a toy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia. Inflammatory or divisive templates have no place here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I support userboxes in general, but this is just lame.  Grue  06:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion This is hilarious. 1) I'm one of the ones who should inflamed and felt cut off from his fellow wikipedian by this "inflammatory and divisive" template because I totally disagree with it. The only thing is...I'M NOT! I enjoy hearing a opposite point of view and respect those who have them. I wish people would stop chicken-littling that wikipedia is going to end if people have POV's on their user pages. Edit wars don't start over that, they start over what's in ARTICLES. 2) Although I personally think free speech is a good enough reason to keep, I'm one of the few people who posted what I think are "wikipedia project-related" reasons why these templates are good, which User:MarkSweep "swept under the rug" by not responding. I said, "this template lets users know you have a strong personal opinion regarding a subject, that you may be interested in editing articles related to it, and may be source of information regarding what adherents to that opinion believe." 3) I say deleting these templates is moot because it's just a big exercise in masturbation. Your big reason for deleting them is that you don't want "divisive, inflammatory POV" on userpages? Well, if you delete them, people will just use the raw code (or prose!) to recreate them on their userpages. What then? Lawyer2b 07:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I can't help but chuckle. Those Admins who want all these "nasty POV Templates" deleted to keep the wikicommunity together coudln't have created more bitterness and division in it with their actions if they tried. Pray tell gentlemen...will the beatings continue until morale improves? Lawyer2b 08:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore in the user namespace. (Second choice: Keep deleted.) I like Crotalus horridus' compromise that was used in some of the other DRV debates. Banish userboxes not directly related to the encyclopedia from the template namespace, but keep them in user namespace so they can be transcluded if necessary. I used to think this would die down on its own, but I'm honestly fed up with Wikipedia. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering leaving, and I doubt Wikipedia will continue on for much longer if things remain like this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted while no fan of unilateralism, this template does nothing to either help us write a better encyclopedia or support our efforts to demostrate our obligation to WP:NPOV. Prove neutrality through excellent editing and userpages should not be little playgrounds to erect billboards that are clear violations of the NPOV.--MONGO 10:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. And undelete. helohe (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not the place, divisive. --Improv 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no way that 'I am against X' userboxes are helping create an encyclopedia. Therefore, given the problems they cause, we have to dispense with them. The Land 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hootenanny (store)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hootenanny (store). 6 delete, 5 merge and or keep votes. Closing admin seems to think that votes he disagrees with can be discounted because "AFD is a debate, not a vote". He also overlooked the argument that it has a notable corporate parent, so he can't have examined the debate very closely. Kappa 13:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your local Wal-Mart has a notable corporate parent. That doesn't make it notable. It doesn't even make it worthy of being merged; what place would information on that particular store have in the article? Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So as a closing admin you are just ignoring all the votes which have reaons you disagree with? Kappa 13:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're working your way up to a spray about how admins should only count votes and not exercise their judgement, I'm going to cry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Please try to remember that wikipedia discussions should be conducted in a civil tone. Kappa 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Threatening to cry is incivil? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
          • No, but making someone and then slapping them with fish in the face (obscure reference) is. ComputerJoe 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• He's absolutely right that AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and the tally is irrelevant. I also agree that having a notable corporate parent doesn't necessarily mean anything. That said, looking at both Newman Comics and the deleted article, it does look like an excellent merge candidate. A lot of the info in the deleted article is already in its corporate parent's article, so frankly a redirect would probably have done nicely. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop someone creating a redirect right now. Endorse close, no reason given for keeping this.--Doc ^ask? 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Endorse close, we want to get to a million articles, but not like this. Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse status quo, which is currently merge and redirect by the looks of it, since I don't actually care that much what went on given that the result is a decent-sized article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The status quo is redirected with the history deleted. Kappa 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse status quo. -- Jonel | Speak 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Endorse closing Closing editor's action fine. A borderline-nn. Somebody has to do the closing on these borderline-nn. We're not drowning kittens! --FloNight 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, but you are destroying information people care about. Kappa 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not as such, no. Looking at the deleted history, there is very little there. There might be a small amount of trivia missing from the main article, but arguably it is not Wikipedia's place to list the brands stocked by a local store, especially since that might change at any time. Do we list all the brands sold out of Macy's? If anyone actually does care that much I will get the additional text out of the deleted history for them, but in my view it's too crufty to be worth the effort. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I was specifically promised some kitten drowning when I signed up. --Aaron 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Like Kappa, I found the AfD to be less than well closed. The case for merging was made and supported, but in the tiresome inclusionist-deletionist catfight, the keepers and deleters failed to raise any serious grounds against the suggestion. Closing admins have a responsibility to find the outcome that best fits the discussion, and there's a fine line between doing this and finding an interpretation of the AfD that best fits one's own opinion. Johnleemk may understand that, but this exceptional closing does not provide evidence of it. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  Undelete per Kappa. The nomination was little more than a display of aggressive ignorance; the nominator used the same justification to nominate a well-known and well-established specialty retailer (SFFH bookstore) for deletion, claiming there were "two dozen" like it in his neighborhood. The discussion there [[17]] shows pretty clearly that the nominator didn't know what a specialty retailer was, and should have led the closing admin to discount his "vote" (and the "votes" that simply cited the nominator). Note also that the nominator, in that discussion, used the fact that he'd never heard of many of the notable authors who were associated with the retailer as support for his claim. Wikipedia should be guided by the knowledge of its editors, not the ignorance of its editors. I don't know whether this particular specialty retailer is Wikipedia-notable, but the parent business certainly is, and has something of a track record for creating distinctive/notable enterprises. Monicasdude 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete the history The closure was not perfectly in-process, but a redirect/merge is a satisfactory result as far as content-merit is concerned. Let the history be complete, however, as this does no harm, and satisfies those with a process grievance. Xoloz 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As it's a non-controversial article and is already a redirect, I undeleted the history (which probably should not have been deleted). --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per FloNight. --Kbdank71 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep redirected. No real need to undelete history, as there's hardly anything to undelete, though there's no harm in undeleting it either. The original closer maybe should have done the redirect himself, but there was certainly no call for a flat out keep. I don't think anyone takes Kurt Weber's comments in AFDs seriously (at least I hope they don't), and no one else gave a single reason for keeping it. -R. fiend 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete history - since it is harmless. Despite my reservations about the close, I am happy with the status quo. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete or just Recreate at will and back up off site after recurrent redeletions: You want the breakdown of policy, you've got it. This page is full of examples, this article being one of them. Karmafist 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Karmafist. --Aaron 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Template was listed on TFD and closed on February tenth as NO CONSENSUS by User:Splash. However, User:Tony Sidaway saw fit to delete it as T1 after this decision was made. I recommend that this template be undeleted. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - Agreed. Speedy deletion is not a toy, especially after a decision has already been made (or not made). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia. Needlessly inflammatory/divisive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Mostly harmless. User:Adrian/zap2.js 06:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I don't see how this is a T1. NSLE _(T+C) 06:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Bky1701 06:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete deleting stuff without consensus is disruption of Wikipedia.  Grue  07:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as CSD T.1 (divisive). If the "us against them" mentality expressed by this template isn't divisive, I don't know what is. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  Surely, this template divides normal users and admins who follow policy from admins who don't follow policy. I think almost everyone agrees that the second group should be ideally empty. In a sense this userbox restates Wikipedia policy that admins abusing their powers are a bad thing. Wikipedia:Administrators tells the same thing! Do you propose deleting it as well?  Grue  07:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  Moreso, if someone finds this template offensive I recommend them to voluntarily step down, so the template doesn't apply to them anymore. This will help us to write a better encyclopedia.  Grue  11:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Although I can certainly see User:MarkSweep has a dog in this fight. Lawyer2b 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A definitive abuse of template space. --Tony Sidaway 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This template does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 10:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. More borderline than some. However, ultimately it's not helping write a better encyclopedia. If you have issues with an administrator I strongly recommend raising it with them, or on the relevant noticeboards, or through an RfC/RfAr process. A 'I am pissed off' template does nothing but raise the remperature of the encyclopedia. The Land 19:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

9 February 2006

User:SPUI

I totally disagree with deleting this user page. Reverting and protection would have done just as well. I would like to request that this be undeleted, reverted to a satisfactory revision and protected. As I know that SPUI was definitely violating WP:POINT I won't reverse the decision, but I do think that we should not just delete the page arbitrarily. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• It appears this just got undeleted, by both Phroziac and Haukurth. Ral315 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I can live with that since it's protected. On the deletion, I really appreciate the excellent work SPUI has done, but I don't think we should continue to give him a platform for trolling. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• SPUI's version made me laugh, but I have to agree it doesn't have much to do with building an encyclopaedia. I see it more as satire than trolling, though. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore to creator's preferred version, unprotect as the creator is not an admin, go sort some stubs as punishment for getting so worked up over this. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:28, Feb. 9, 2006

  I'm not particular about the version. I put a duck up there as an attempt at compromise but I'm not wedded to it being a duck-only page :) Stub-sorting is pointless—but extremely efficient and well organized—busywork ;) - Haukur 15:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Restore last version by SPUI. It's satire, not trolling; and though it may be making a point, it isn't disrupting Wikipedia. (Unless, say, Tony comes in and chooses to disrupt Wikipedia over it.) // paroxysm (n) 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto on Paroxysm: Has Wikipedia gone insane? Karmafist 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, with the difference that the paedophile userboxes must not be there. They are unacceptable. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and unprotect. I'm undecided if we should allow the pedophile things there, but I am tending to a yes. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per Paroxysm. --Aaron 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore to creator's preferred version - that is what userpages are for. If individual templates (e.g. the paedophile userbox Sam Korn mentioned), then delete the templates using the proper process, not the pages using them Cynical 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope no-one considers it even slightly acceptable to create any userboxes, templatised or hard-coded, in jest or in seriousness, claiming to be a paedophile. If they do, they have another, possibly quite long, think coming. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restory - It's ridiculous to delete someone's user page and then tell them they can't recreate it!!!! --Cyde Weys 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per paroxysm. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy. :> Splash^talk 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Now why didn't I think of that? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is brilliant, Splash. Userfy per Spash. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

8 Feb 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was restored per request of Thryduulf by Physchim62. Aaron 22:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia

This was spedily deleted by Physchim62 as "G7 (author requested deletion)" (emphasis orginal). However, even though the author did request deletion it is not eligable for speedy deletion under this criterion:

Criterion G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." (emphasis mine).

The page was not mistakenly created, as evidenced by all the previous discussion. In addition to its author (Herostratus), it has also been edited by Dschor, Zoe, and user:DanielCD in its current location and Paroxysm, Silent War and Jelligraze in its original location [18] (move was a copy and paste that I was going to repair later this evening when I had time).

If there was a clear consensus to delete then I would not be worried by the breach of process, but when it was closed there were 8 votes to delete and to 6 keep (plus stuck out votes and no votes) with strong arguments on both sides - clearly no consensus. I am not asking for permanent undeletion but I am asking for a full hearing at MfD, rather than the ~16 hours it did get. Thryduulf 18:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor was editing in violation of an ArbCom injunction (see CSD G5); Zoe merely added an MfD tag, which does not cont as an edit for the purposes of CSD G7; DanielCD merely removed his name from the participants list in accordance with his stated intention of ceasing to edit on pedophilia-related issues. I wasn't aware that this was a cut-and-paste move, but G7 does appear to apply. The author of the page requested deletion in the light of current events and has removed his name from the participants list. If other users wish to create a WikiProject Pedophilia (as has existed in the past on Wikipedia, before this project), I would not consider this a recreation of deleted material. However I think that the wishes of the page author should be respected in this case, especially given the current tensions surrounding the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy and let the MfD play itself out. As noted, this was a cut-and-paste move so not all the authors can be seen. I'm sympathetic to the fact that this WikiProject and its members knew nothing about the wheel war, and I suspect this WikiProject wouldn't have been involved at all if it wasn't for Dschor signing up for it and creating the userbox template for this WikiProject. However, the damage is likely already done: the main participants in the project have decided to leave because they don't want to be involved. --Deathphoenix 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and allow process. Considering changing my vote on the MfD. The Land 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Restored as per request. Physchim62 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

7 Feb 2006

Brian Peppers

Was deleted and protected by User:UninvitedCompany despite the previous failure to remove via AFD. Uninvited's reasoning was as follows: "I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure." (See Talk:Brian_Peppers.) While I am certain that Uninvited was acting in good faith, I fear that it sets a dubious precedent to allow articles to be deleted because the article subject, or representatives of the subject, complained. If the information is uncited, it should of course be removed; if evidence is shown that it is libelous, it should also be removed. However, there's no evidence any of this was the case here. The mugshot is a public record, accessible to anyone, and is available through many websites other than Wikipedia, so removing it from here in no way even increases the subject's privacy. And this particular individual has been widely discussed on the Internet. Although Uninvited says that "privacy laws" may outlaw the publishing of this photo, no specific law was cited, and I find it difficult to believe that any law prohibiting the publication of crime-related information (like this mugshot) would withstand constitutional scrutiny. AFAIK, even laws prohibiting the publication of rape victims' names have been struck down. I suggest that this deletion be reconsidered. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted (in the strongest terms possible). The last AfD followed several successful AfD deletions and recreations. It was my opinion at the time that the article should never be allowed to be created, and I was utterly shocked at some people's lack of appreciation of how unencyclopedic the article was. The article was recreated and kept through an AfD, in my strong opinion, due to recreation/AfD gaming; it should die a permanent death. --Nlu (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and plow a ton of salt under - There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this person, and the content of the article was essentially "ha ha look at this guy he's funny-looking and he's a sex offender, OMGWTFBBQ LOLLERSKATES." It's a juvenile and pathetic attack page. Beyond that, this is a case where the potential harm to the encyclopedia, as expressed by UninvitedCompany, far outweighs the infinitesimal "contribution" made by the article to the "sum total of human knowledge." FCYTravis 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak and reluctant overturn (and relist, if you could stomach a 6th nomination). The last time this was AfDed (for the 5th time), it was no consensus (which, while grounds for a keep, still means that there's some serious doubts about whether it should be kept), and I voted Keep because I felt it was a notable Internet meme and the article text at the 5th nomination wasn't a copyvio, nor was it a recreation of what was previously deleted. I feel that the article as written violated no privacy laws as it made use of information already available to the public and contained nothing that could lead the anything dangerous happening to the subject. It does not contain a photo of said individual, nor does it contain any problematic details such as the offender's contact details. However, this article is just a wheel war waiting to happen. Uninvited Company likely deleted this for a very good reason. If UC will bring some good reasons to this discussion (such as, say, the family's lawyer calling with a cease and desist), I'll likely change my vote. OTOH, if it was just family members calling and saying that they don't like the article, I probably won't. --Deathphoenix 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Fair enough, good arguments for this. --Deathphoenix 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• If there is a legal issue here, it should certainly be addressed, though I have my doubts that there is, or it would likely affect hundreds of other somewhat similar articles. Does the wikimedia foundation have a lawyer who could straighten this out? Absent anything else, I'd have to go along with undeletion. While I'm certainly no fan of it, and likely would have voted to delete it at the AFD, there does seem to be a weak consensus to keep it. -R. fiend 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Lest anyone should have counted that as a vote to undelete, it no longer is. My only concerns were respecting consensus, so I do not want to stand in the way of a better consensus being formed here. -R. fiend 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• If the guy looked like an average Joe we would not even be having this conversation; those who want to look up this puerile fad can do so elsewhere. Ask yourself: WWJD? Keep deleted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have voted (an extremely reluctant) keep in AfD debates for this article on the grounds that the internet fad was just about notable enough. However, assuming that UninvitedCompany is acting honourably (which I am certain he was) then the deletion should stand. Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• I also voted keep in the last AfD. I do question the extent to which privacy laws protect against the dissemination of photographs taken from a public sex-offender registry. In at least some jurisdictions, dissemination of such information is specifically exempted from privacy laws. Nevertheless, taking Uninvited Company at his word, with sympathy for Mr. Peppers, I'll vote Keep Deleted here. Xoloz 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Unless you can argue that there is a legal issue, it was wrongfully deleted. It should be undeleted, and you can then continue the discussion in AFD. It is silly to argue the articles merits, when the majority of us cannot see it. Jonatan 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I am somewhat reluctant since I did talk to UninvitedCompany and he claimed there was too much on the Wikipedia legal back burner and this needed to be done. But it seems more appropriate for us to have a AFD, especially considering all of the information present in the article was accurate and sourced. I do not feel it serves as a juvenile attack page. If anything, it serves to prevent such things from occuring by providing accurate facts about the man.--Aleron235 22:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Another AFD would be utterly pointless and get nobody anywhere in particular. The article has already gone through, what, six of them, five of which were delete and the sixth no-consensus? FCYTravis 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, unless the Wikimedia lawyers actually believe it to be a problem, in which case we should remove the possibly illegal portions. SNOPES has a fucking article on it - the legal argument is dubious at best. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I have no reason to doubt User:UninvitedCompany's statement that the deletion was by family request, and it has historically been our stance that their privacy concern takes precedence over a minor article. Observing basic courtesy enhances the project and enables us to move on with self respect to create a better encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  Are you proposing we set a precedent to delete all pages (even if factually accurate) on a questionable public figure if someone e-mails Wikipedia claiming to be a family member of the subject of the article? Sounds like a new way for trolls to get articles deleted off Wikipedia. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of like-pages that this could be done for. VegaDark 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think it would be a precedent. I'm sure we've pulled articles like this on request through OTRS--I may well have deleted one or two in this way myself. We're not robots, so it's unlikely that trolls would have much success using complaints as a tactic to get rid of good articles with which they have no personal connections. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  Yet the trolls seem to be having success here. As pointed out elsewhere, someone has recently been going around claiming to be a relative of Brian Peppers, which has then turned out to be a hoax. So Occam's Razor suggests that this request is bogus as well. Turnstep 12:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, as deletion policy does not trump privacy law, and there is a dubious argument for this person being a "public person" according to the legal definition (IANAL, though.) However, it would be nice for UninvitedCompany to tell us more of the background of this issue, if ethically possible. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, par Jonatan. --Bky1701 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• There is an excellent reason this page should remain deleted. It is this: I have deleted this page at the request of a family member of its subject. I do not believe that this page should be recreated without careful legal review. The subject does not appear to be a public figure. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[19] See also [20]. Regards ENCEPHALON 23:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, both per Tony and because I endorse UninvitedCompany's judgment on this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Its resurrection after it had been deleted four times already was bad enough already. Pilatus 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the first delete was valid, but the next two were G4 speedies, not AFDs. It was later returned to AFD quite properly through a valid DRV, and its consequent vote was a sizeable majority for keep (far from a "close but no-consensus" vote, which I would have balked at overriding an earlier delete consensus). I'm ambivalent about this, and I would like something made clear before I make a final decision here: are we looking at keeping it deleted for legal reasons or as a courtesy? -R. fiend 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pleased to see this go because this kind of stuff has the power to bring the project in disrepute. The article should never have been re-created. As I see it, you can defend obscenity in the name of an encyclopedia but not discourtesy. Pilatus gets of his soapbox now. Pilatus 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Thank-you UninvitedCompany! --FloNight 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and keep protected from recreation. This person did not choose to become a public figure. Privacy requests are entirely reasonable and should be honored in such cases. Also keep deleted for all the reasons I (and others) presented in the prior discussions. There's just no encyclopedia article here - not in the latest version nor in any prior version. Rossami (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article was sourced and verifiable - he has an entry on Snopes. I think assuming good faith is fine in principle, but not when it comes to deleting an article that survived an AfD. How does UninvitedCompany know the person he spoke to was truly a family member? Even if so, why should that have any effect on us making a NPOV encylopedia? I seem to recall that recently some congressional staffers were caught removing text from articles on members of Congress that, while objectively true, presumably the Congresspeople did not want on the page. Should we extend a courtesy to them if they call an admin and ask that the material be deleted from the page? This page should either meet our guidelines, or it does not. And the previous AfD seems to indicate that it does meet our guidelines. Since I did not see the article show up here on DR, I an only assume that nobody felt strongly that the AfD was conducted improperly. Therefore, undelete. Raise an objection on the talk page, start another AfD with new information, but do not speedy delete. Turnstep 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete if snopes keeps an article on him with no fear of lawsuit, we can too. The meme has turned him into a public figure. Meme notwithstanding... he is still a public figure due to listings on a public sex offender registry. This should never have been given 5 afd's in such a short period, that smacks of WP:POINT. Overturn and cleanup drastically.  ALKIVAR™ 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Being on a sex offender registry does not necessarily make someone a public figure. "A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status. Typically, they must either be: a public figure, pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted." There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Peppers would ever be ruled even a limited purpose public figure. Having a bunch of morons post your picture on forums does not make you an involuntary public figure, either. FCYTravis 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete. The last revision I saw wasn't derogatory at all, but simply listing undisputable facts. This survived it's last AfD with a 44-21 vote in favor to keep, showing that the majority of people who voted feel this article should stay on Wikipedia. "Brian Peppers" gets 154,000 Google hits. As far as I know that qualifies as being notable, and thus qualifies him to have a Wikipedia article. Also, there used to be mainstream news links relating to this, but were deleted. This could probably be found on the web archive if one looked hard enough. This person was newsworthy after the meme came about. Preferably I'd like this reviewed by Jimbo and/or the board but until that happens I have to say that Wikipedia must include this article if we want our enycylopedia to be the best it can be. We have an article on Henry Earl whom is no more notable than Brian peppers. VegaDark 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Mr. Earl appears to have participated in his own fame, becoming at least a limited purpose public figure by virtue of his (obviously voluntary) appearances on talk shows and news channels. That is not the case for Mr. Peppers, who has never appeared on television, has never given an interview, and whose "fame" is entirely related to asshats posting his picture on the Internet and laughing at it. FCYTravis 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And? I am not necessarily saying he falls into the public figure category. I am informing people of his notability, and feel the old article on him was not something Wikipedia could be sued over, as it stated facts alone. AFAIK Wikipedia can (and should) have articles on notable people, public figures or not. We just have to be more carful on what we say for those who aren't public figures. The latest revision of Brian Peppers' page was about as neutral and pure fact based as it can get.VegaDark 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not his fame is voluntary doesn't matter a single bit. Most serial killers probably never wanted to become famous. I'm sure Terri Schiavo wasn't voluntary, either.--Josh 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Peppers is not a serial killer, nor is he the focus of a major, precedent-setting legal case taken to the United States Supreme Court. Your attempts at comparison fail in every single possible way. FCYTravis 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and salt the earth behind it/protect from re-creation. Enough is enough. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Brian Peppers has never sought publicity and his family has asked for privacy. Let's treat the man with the dignity he deserves, and obviously hasn't gotten. Durova 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Having a strange appearance is not a criterion for Wikipedia notability. And Wikipedia shouldn't be a party to the morally handicapped mocking the physically handicapped. Monicasdude 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and never, ever, ever create this page again. Thunderbunny 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete. If Snopes.com has an article then Wikipedia should have an article about this infamous man.
• Keep deleted, as you might well imagine from my prior actions on this article. For the record, I have not yet received any reply from the individual who wrote to info-en@ and brought this matter to my attention in the first place. Though it's only been a day, I too am suspicious of their claim that they are a family member. I share this because it may incline some voters to see this matter in a different light, though I myself do not; derogatory information about a private figure remains unlawful (and inappropriate for Wikipedia independent of what the law might say) and that is the principal basis for my deletion. Others have already linked my prior comments on the talk page of the deleted article, which remain valid. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - I have mixed feelings on this. Procedure-wise, there's a case of undeleting/relisting. But I think its damaging to allow this to appear on Wikipedia, even temporarily. Leaving this on, sets a really bad precident, not just for others on a registry, but for any private person who gets their picture passed around on web sites for looking peculiar. If mainstream media picked this up widely and substantially (hopefully they won't), and they turn him in to a public figure, then we might be stuck with an article on him. But they haven't, and we should ignore this like they do. --Rob 09:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Too many claims, not enough legal evidence. Notable for being a meme, not for being deformed. And as far as I can[not] see, there's nothing derogatory here, and if there is, we can fix it. // paroxysm (n) 21:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• You think the "meme" would exist if the guy looked like you or me? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  No, and I don't see how this should affect my vote. We're documenting the meme because it itself is notable; Brian Peppers is not notable for being deformed. He's notable for being the subject of a popular meme because he's deformed.

  Likewise, there's nothing inherently notable about the phrase "Kilroy was here." Nevertheless, we document it because of the notability of its popularity. // paroxysm (n) 23:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I see a distinction in Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. Durova 04:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And I see a distinction in that Kilroy is remembered nearly a hundred years after it was first seen, whereas there is little verifiable evidence of Peppers' story being taken up by any mainstream media. He's a disabled guy with a congenital deformity convicted of a technical offence because he touched up his nurse. I'm not given to quoting scripture but this calls to mind proverbs 1:26: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh. I hold no brief for convicted sex offenders, but I really think that this amounts to kicking a guy when he's down, and I don't see that we should be taking any part of it. Anyone who wants the information can get it readily from other sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's Wikipedia policy for "Anyone who wants the information can get it readily from other sources" just because someone feels sorry for the subject of the article. I feel sorry for him as well, but I think Wikipedia having an article on him will actually better his situation- Many times his picture comes along with "You're gonna get raped" or "child molestor" etc. etc. I think Wikipedia having an unbiased, NPOV non degrading article on him listing facts alone is for the better for him and for Wikipedia. People should be able to come here and find out that those are false accusations instead of seeing a "this article has been deleted" message and keep their misconceptions about him. I know I first came to Wikipedia to look him up, and was happy to find an article on him. I hope others will get that same chance instead of seeing a "this article has been deleted" message. VegaDark 05:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a fair compromise: Undelete, edit down, and merge/redirect to a list of popular Internet Memes. That way, his contributions to popular culture are archived, but he doesn't get his own (derogatory) article. I won't take sides in this one, since there is already a war going on, I believe an article about him would be offensive, but I am also a reader of YTMND. Crazyswordsman 05:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to that, all other then the "edit down" part. The debate going on before the deletion was if more should be added, it seems unnecessary and unreasonable to edit it down given that. If anything, some small things should be removed and other notes should be added and it should be merged and redirected. --Bky1701 08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, and unilaterally burninate any more users trying to resurrect this article. Ral315 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete, i think the post above me proves that if Trogdor the Burninator gets his own wiki aritcle, then this popular internet meme should be allowed its own. the attempt to delete this article from is flagrant wikipedia censorship of a topic that makes some people uncomfortable. sparsefarce 11:04am, 9 feb 2006 (PT)
• Undelete per Jonatan. Gene Nygaard 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Unilateral deletion should never occur under such circumstances. This should have been relisted on AfD and the legal issue discussed. The fact that family members requested its deletion is in and of itself irrelevant. Allowing this to stand sets an awful precedent. Postdlf 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah, without changing my opinion about deleting based on family requests, I just noticed how many times this had been validly AFD'd (I have a fever right now, please forgive the illness-induced carelessness). Keep deleted only as a recreation of previously deleted material. The last AfD should have been aborted at the outset because no undeletion consensus had first been reached (from what I can see); I believe that AfD accordingly lacked "jurisdiction." Postdlf 02:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This first went through AfD with a consensus to delete, right when the meme was new and was not notable enough for Wikipedia. It went through 3 AfD's after that, which all ended up as a speedy delete due to a re-creation of previosuly deleted content - not due to people voting. It's latest AfD (December) was officially declared no consensus, yet there was a 44-21 vote in favor to keep, enough for the admin to have officially declared keep. Don't you think that says something? Also, we are going through an undeletion process right now- not an AfD. If you think the article should be kept or deleted, you should just say why here. If we kept it undeleted based on it being recreation of deleted material, we would have to submit another deletion review for Brian Peppers to be ruled as something worthy of undeletion- hence you might as well just state your opinion now. VegaDark 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The original AfD was valid. I've seen no reason to question that. Postdlf 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't just pick *one* of the AfDs - the latest one always trumps the others. And as I pointed out above, it's not like anyone brought the latest AfD here to DR. Turnstep 04:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete. He's famous, and often referenced to online. People who see all the talk of Brian Peppers and do not understand should be able to come here and find out. He definitely has significance. Most, importantly, this person has already been the victim of someone pretending to be his brother. A man claiming to be "Allen Peppers" posted a dishonest letter asking people to leave Brian alone. Therefore, my guess is that the person who requested that this article be deleted was probably not related to the subject in any way. Someone unrelated to Brian probably did this out of sympathy towards him, (likely caused by the "Truth About Brian Peppers" YTMND, which ironically made him even more noteworthy,) or someone who found humor in the idea of pretending to be Peppers' brother, like "Allen" before him.--Josh 04:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I hate to break it to you, but this guy isn't "famous." He's a target of derision, mockery and laughter from infantile, puerile teenagers on teh intarweb. That doesn't make him "famous." FCYTravis 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This "intarweb" you're mocking is what you're spending your time on right now, jackass. You're not the only one, either. An enormous percent of the world spends time on the Internet every day, and Brian Peppers is very well known on it. He's even been featured in mass media, in a story by FOX Toledo. Someone covered on that scale, who is known of by at least a quarter-million people, is undeniably notable. To deny his notability just because you think people are mean would be straight-up dishonest.

--Josh 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you have a massively inflated view of what the Internet is and what it isn't. Teh intarweb is not the world. In fact, it is only a very bare tiny percent of the world. Look outside your bedroom window. Get outside. Walk around. Talk to people. Real people who don't spend their pathetic lives on some silly "humor" site mocking some guy who bears the cross of some sort of disfiguring birth defect. Go to the supermarket. Ask 100 people who Brian Peppers is. If you're lucky, you'll find one. Maybe. Getting coverage by "FOX Toledo" is ridiculously simple. TV news is always looking for some sensationalistic tabloid trash. Yet that's THE ONLY media hit you can point to. That's pathetic. Utterly pathetic. I'll leave you with this. Last year, a national sports car magazine with a circulation of more than 70,000 ran a full-page feature article on me. I'm still not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Call me back when Brian Peppers hits Newsweek or The New York Times or even FOX News Channel. I'd even count Salon.com. But see, they aren't covering it. Why? There's *no story* here. None. Zip. Zilch. Just the fact that some poor guy got nailed for some minor sex crime and got put on probation, and some "jackass," to use your word, found his picture and went LOL LOL HEZ ULGY LOL SEX MOLESTSAR ZOMG ROFL and posted it on some more Internet boards where more groupthink mental midgets laughed at it. That's not newsworthy. That's not encyclopedic. That's just sad. FCYTravis 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this one...normally, I'd say the guy meets a minimum notability standard for inclusion, but at the same time, I feel kinda bad for the guy. In the end, I'm going to have to say undelete it. His Wikipedia article is not going to have anything except neutral, notable and fully verifiable information. I feel the odds of a significant number of people wanting to read an article on Peppers are pretty high, given the level of internet fame he has acquired, and the desire to provide the information in that instance is probably the most important thing here. Everyking 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - This one should be a no-brainer. We have no verifiable evidence regarding this claim that the family members want the article deleted; and even if they did, so what? There's a lot of information on Wikipedia some people don't want to see the light of day (see the U.S. Congress's editing of various articles for further details), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be around. This page certainly doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. If you want to undelete it and then relist it for AfD (again) then go ahead. But this page certainly didn't merit speedy deletion like that. --Cyde Weys 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Forget about the previous five AfDs; how about the rationale for creating the article in the first place? This basically boils down to "Hey look, we've got a picture of a really deformed guy; let's gin up a reason to humiliate him more than he already has been by the Internet community just for the hell of it." Brian Peppers has done nothing of notability. Nothing. Maybe it's time to start a policy discussion about creating a "basic humanitarian decency" criterion for speedy deletes? --Aaron 22:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would support that. I guess that the Interweb is so pervasive and so much a part of determining what is verifiable and significant in the real world that we kind of forget that it is the real world we're supposed to be documenting. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for broader discussion as this was deleted outside of process. If a law is being violated by allowing this material on Wikipedia, please cite the law and I will reconsider my vote. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Undelete People (thank God) dont apply the same reasoning to other internet memes so in my opinion people only want this deleted because they feel sorry for him (understandable) and want to vent out their anger by having the page deleted. It get's aroung 80,000 hits on google for Christ's sake I think it would be notable Johhny-turbo 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This deletion defies both process and common sense. Silensor 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Enough, please, of the misleading "He gets 15 zillion Google hits!" argument. If you remove the dozens of YTMND pages about him, he gets exactly 516 unique Google hits, and the last 20 or so of those are nothing but porno spam pages that inserted his name randomly. He's non-notable. --Aaron 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well Microsoft gets 436 uniques[21]. So, 516 isn't that bad. So, the unique count is about as worthless as the total hit count. --Rob 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Comment Thanks, User:Thivierr, for saving me the hassle of pointing out why unique google hits don't mean anything here. Look, it's unfortunate that this fellow is mocked by some, unfortunate that he's ridiculed, unfortunate that his family has to deal with this. But the standard here is -- he's a public figure. If I were writing something up for the paper, I'd have no compunctions about mentioning his name, and we cannot set a precedent for the disinclusion of information just because someone objects to it. What about Daniel Brandt? Boris Floricic? Why do we do for Brian Peppers, but not for them? Show consistency, and don't put us in awkward positions by semi-randomly deleting content by request. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Nobody has demonstrated why this man is a public figure. He has not been the subject of any public controversy. He has not injected himself into the public square. He has not been featured in any major mass media. He's an object of derision on an Internet humor site. That does *not* make him a public figure under the law. The other two people you cited have both been repeatedly the subject of reporting by major mainstream media outlets, including television, newsmagazines, newspapers and even books. The only thing that can be pointed to for this guy is one two-paragraph blurb on a local TV station Web site, and a Snopes entry. That's *it.* That is all. If someone wanted to write something on this for The Advocate, as a senior editor I'd circular-file that "story idea" in 10 seconds flat. There's a little something called journalistic ethics that precludes us from making a mockery of someone for no other reason than to be insensitive and depraved. This deletion is one small victory for culture and class over the juvenile schoolyard antics of immature idiots. FCYTravis 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm almost as surprised that you'd argue that Mr. Peppers is not a public figure as I am that you'd imply that the only way Mr. Peppers can be covered is by abandoning journalistic ethics. If we want to go for the misguided sympathy factor on this, then I invite you to consider the following: There are thousands of sites that mention Mr. Peppers. How many of them do you think will ever get updated if he does something good, notable, or respectable? One. Wikipedia. Otherwise, for the rest of his life, he's just that goofy guy from the photo. That's all. Deciding this by your sympathy doesn't help Wikipedia, and it doesn't help Peppers. I'm at a loss as to what good deletion would do. Ultimately, deletion, if upheld, would be a victory for the same tear-jerking appeals to emotion that sour much of mass media. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deletion means we don't repeat this nonsensical and asinine 'fad' and allow it to die a natural death as the people who laugh at this poor schlub grow out of their infantile amusement. BTW, how can you argue that Peppers *is* a public figure? Can you please point to the coverage? Anything? Bueller? Bueller? If this guy's truly a public figure, surely there's more out there than a now-deleted blurb on FOX Toledo and a Snopes entry. So where's the beef? Oh, that's right. There isn't any. This isn't an appeal to emotion. It's an appeal to reason and ethics. FCYTravis 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how I could argue otherwise. He's quite evidently an involuntary, limited-purpose, deeply-unfortunate public figure, based on extensive rehashing of his case in the public eye. Or did you mean that only the media can create public figures? That'd be a bit elitist of us as journalists, no? As for laughing at Mr. Peppers, I think you do a disservice to Wikipedia. I think it can handle this topic without cruelty or malice, and paint Peppers for what he is -- an unfortunate man, who's made mistakes, and still has a life ahead of him. I firmly believe deleting his entry is unethical. It deprives him of the one online resource that might keep track of any positive achievements of his, and says, basically, that we're going to sweep him under the rug, that we see him as so deeply pathetic that he's unsuitable for coverage. That isn't reasonable *or* ethical. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• How can I argue otherwise? The fact that *virtually nothing* has been said about this person anywhere outside juvenile morons laughing at his appearance on blogs and Web forums. Being laughed at does not make one a public figure. No reporting outside of that, at all. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Zip. I keep waiting for someone to show me some evidence of notability other than juvenile morons laughing at him. Nobody's presented any. We don't know that Peppers is an unfortunate man. We don't know what mistakes he's made. We don't know what his life is like or what it will be. Therefore, we at Wikipedia cannot say any of that. The only verifiable fact here is that he's some guy who got laughed at on the Internet, and I'll be damned if everything anyone ever laughed at on the Internet is encyclopedic. FCYTravis 02:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your assertions are incorrect on at least two counts. The man's had legal and medical misfortune; this much is established. He's made mistakes, per the rulings of the courts. If your issue is the lack of detail, we don't delete articles because detail isn't present, we develop them. Would you like this researched? We can always bring it back to DRV if I find anything worth publishing in a WP:NOT-worthy periodical. It'd make a fantastic human-interest piece. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. He is an odd-looking sex offender; this shouldn't qualify one for a Wikipedia article. We should respect his family's wishes. Rhobite 02:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise per Crazyswordsman (ie, cleanup, and merge/redirect to a list of popular Internet Memes). He clearly is notable, but I also feel we should respect the wishes of him and his family. Then again, we didn't do that for Daniel Brandt... --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Hes notible. Its his own fault if he does not want a page... No one forced him down the road he took. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • He is distinctly not notable for anything that he did. He is only notable for his appearance. --

Hamiltonian 21:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

He is notable for being the subject of a notable internet meme, which was directly related to his appearance and the fact that he is a sex offender. However, the reason for notability is irrelevant, as long as notability is recognized he should have an article on Wikipedia. VegaDark 22:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Without the ability to view the page that was deleted I can only comment on what I know. Editors, and even sysops, should not be the point of contact for the legal status of an article, very few of us are lawyers, and those that are do not represent Wikipeida (afaik). Wikipedia was not sued or even threated legally by Mr. Peppers. If this were to happen we would hear about it and the decision would not me one the editors of Wikipedia would be making, it would be up to the board. I am voting undelete because a precedence for an article being deleted based on legal dealings with an editor would be a very poor one to set. —A 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, wikipedia articles should not be deleted this way, and he is notable enough. bbx 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bible

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 24 votes for deletion, 3 weak deletes, 5 redirects, 1 to merge, and 5 keeps. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• It seems like a clear consensus to delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been redirected now. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wait a minute. Now you've changed the title of the article in your nomination. What article and specifically what AFD discussion are you requesting that we review? Rossami (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ahh... Simultaneous nominations. Now sorted out. Please post the link to the AFD discussion directly when making the nomination.
• This reflects a basic misunderstanding of how AfD works. I'm reposting a message I've already sent to two other people who asked me about this:

  AfD is not a vote.

  When votecounters try to impose their rigid definition of consensus on AfD, the minimum standard is 2/3rds or 66%.

  Delete, merge, and redirect are three different outcomes; if there is no consensus, the solution is for the AfD participants to hash out a consensus (whether to merge or redirect or resubmit to AfD) on the talk.

  In addition, merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL, which requires the page history to be retained if the content is retained. VOTECOUNTING IS BAD ^TM so I find it ridiculous that this is being brought up. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and DRV is for reviewing deletions only; that's why exists (users can't see the content of deleted articles, so they need to request admins on DRV to undelete them). Anything else can be handled by resubmitting to AfD or discussion on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You think it's ridiculous? Reading the guidelines on deletion, it is pretty apparent that your duty as the admin is to summarize your findings and determine a course of action. In this regard, you have pretty plainly been negligent. It seems that a rough consensus has been achieved - there are only 5 who want to keep it as it is, and 32 to get rid of it one way or another. By your standard, no article would ever be deleted as long as some group of people want to keep it. That is plainly not the case. --Leifern 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Surprise, surprise — this is the standard most AfD-closing admins adhere to. This is not a process worked out overnight; on a Wiki, there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision. (If I make an edit you don't like, but you don't revert it, there's consensus — if you revert it, there's no consensus. That's how consensus is defined on a wiki.) It is not my job to make a decision if a large number of people have reviewed a particular article and cannot come to consensus on what to do with it. No consensus is no consensus. It is not an endorsement or a disendorsement of a particular outcome, and defaults to keep unless the admin (in an editorial capacity) decides to merge and/or redirect. Ask pretty much any regular AfD closer (MarkGallagher (talk · contribs), The Land (talk · contribs), Splash (talk · contribs), et al) and they'll tell you the same thing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I dunno, I read the relevant guidelines, and what I read is a call for rough consensus not absolute consensus. If I rounded up three other editors and worked together on an article called Why everyone from Sunnmøre has bad breath, (an absurd, non-noteworthy, blatantly POV, rhetorically fallacious article) we'd probably get 300 "votes" to delete within a few minutes, and I somehow doubt that we as a group who opposed the deletion would get our way. Nor should we. --Leifern 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • But that is not like this case, where we only have ~30 "votes" to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• If the numbers given at the top are accurate, and I haven't checked to see if they are (and I have noticed in manmy of these reviews that they are not), we have 27 delete votes and 11 non-deletes. That's a rough consensus to delete in the eyes of most admins. I now it's not supposed to be a vote, but somehow it always comes down to a vote count anyway. And the idea that "there is no consensus if a group of people strongly oppose a particular decision" is just not true. There is almost always some sort of small minority who oppose anything, they don't trump everyone else. But in any case keep redirected and if anything is to be merged it should be a content dispute at the target page. -R. fiend 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close - but keep redirected (and I voted to delete) --Doc ^ask? 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support his redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Count me in on the "endorse redirect" bandwagon, although there's a pretty clear consensus that the article should have been deleted first and then recreated as a redirect. Tomer^talk 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• A comment on merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL - this action can be made GFDL comliant, it's just a pain. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • True enough. In fact, it's one hell of a pain. Extreme Unction (talk · contribs) is quite fond of the technique, but I know of no-one else who'll lightly consider merging and deleting. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote. If all you have to say for yourself is the vote tally, your argument is far too weak. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the Bible

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible

Discussion was closed, concluding "no consensus." I count 26 votes for deletion, 4 to keep, and 10 to merge. It seems to me there is a very clear consensus that this article should be deleted and any valuable content merged into one or more other articles. --Leifern 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• It seems like a clear consensus to delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflicts) I'm not sure how you tallied that or who you think should have been excluded. A cursory review gave me a tally of 28 deletes, 11 merges (with redirect specified or implied), 2 redirect only and 3 keep as is. That certainly seems to be within reasonable discretion for the closer to consider this a "no consensus" decision. Good arguments were made during the discussion but votes continued to come in on both side, indicating that the subsequent participants did not find one side's arguments onerwhelmingly compelling. I endorse the closure (leave as no consensus). Rossami (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• See above. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yep. Just boldly merge, that fits the bill. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). --Kbdank71 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Clear consensus is to get rid of the article, either as a complete Delete or as an attempt to find any redeemable portions and Merge elsewhere. Let's follow consensus, schedule the article for deletion, and let those in favor of a Merge pull out any non-duplicated material and put it elsewhere. Why keep the article in the face of such overwhelming consenus for elimination. We've voted to kill this article; the only question is the method. Alansohn 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't need DRV for this, as I said. There's a little thing called the talk page, you know. Or you could just be bold or something. But I forgot. Wikipedia is about process, not editing! Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• There wasn't a quorum for full deletion. If you want to merge the article, you don't need DRV to do that. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Quorum? Where's the definition of a quorum on AfD? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• I just boldly redirected it. Anything that anyone wants to merge can be pulled out of the edit history by anyone at any time. There was an obvious consensus not to keep the article, so keeping it as is should be out of the question. Unfortunately, there are always a few confused souls who think that a no consensus means that the article must stay as is. Since that is complete and utter BS, this redirect should at least partially solve the prpblem. This argument can now contimue as a content dispute over at Internal consistency and the Bible. -R. fiend 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Like most other people here: Yes, there is probably a consensus to merge it. However, there was not a clear consensus to delete the article. 'Endorse the closer's decision. The Land
• Endorse close but redirect/merge (and I voted to delete) --Doc ^ask? 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close as obviously correct. AfD discussion suggests that mergeing would be the best outcome, but discussion may continue of the talk page. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close as correctly-made decision, and concur with Johnleemk (talk · contribs)'s comments above. Support R. fiend (talk · contribs)'s redirect and reasoning as proper organic editing practice. -- Jonel | Speak 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reserve my spot on the closure endorsement, although my judgment would have been to have said quite clearly that the consensus was to merge and delete (possibly redirect), rather than that there is no consensus. I would like to encourage Johnleemk to read comments accompanying votes more carefully when making decisions of this sort in the future. It's also a good idea to ask a couple other uninvolved admins when closing contentious AfDs and the like. It may seem like a pain in the hinder, but it can go a long way toward reducing future hinderpains. Tomer^talk 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - From Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages: "Merging should always leave a redirect in place." Merge and delete causes GFDL problems. Having read the comments, I would say that those saying merge did indeed have the strongest arguments; however, given the number of those recommending deletion and noting that they have valid issues, as well as those recommending keeping or redirecting, I would say that there is no consensus and that John made the right call. -- Jonel | Speak 02:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I fail to understand the point you're trying to make. Merging the miniscule amount of decent information and then deleting the crap content (by getting rid of the article) and thereafter recreating the article as a redirect do the article into which the useful content has been merged is what I mean by "merge and delete". The "possibly redirect" was meant as "possibly redirect without deleting first, after the content has been merged". That said, I wasn't "revoting", I was simply saying that I think that Johnleemk's interpretation of "no consensus" was in error, and saying what I would have said the consensus was instead. Tomer^talk 06:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment on "merge and delete": The scenario you describe violates the requirement in GFDL to preserve the attribution history of whatever usable information which you did choose to merge. We normally satisfy the attribution requirement by not deleting the history and by leaving a redirect behind. Yes, there are other ways to satisfy the attribution requirement but they are all tedious, complex and error-prone. That's why many of us take the default position that "merge and delete" is an invalid recommendation (or at least not a cost-effective one). Rossami (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
        • That can be worked around by deleting and restoring only the useful edits, and then blanking in favor of a redirect. Tomer^talk 20:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
          • comment continues: For all but the shortest of edit histories, investigating a page's history edit by edit and restoring "only the useful edits" is a great example of "possible but tedious, complex and error-prone". If you have time and the inclination to do that kind of work, more power to you. I think, however, that as a general rule, that is not a reasonable expectation on a volunteer discussion closer. Unless someone explicitly volunteers to come back and do that work him/herself after the discussion is closed, I will continue to interpret "merge and delete" as an incompatible opinion. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Reopened by howcheng. Aaron 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted's_Kiddush

I believe this article should not have been speedy deleted. The reason User:Jon513 offered for his deletion suggestion was that he lives in Jerusalem and has never heard of the club. This is not a valid reason. I too live in Jerusalem and can confirm that the club is very real, and in fact has an active mailing list. User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There were three votes for deletion and none to keep it. Valid AfD discussion. Keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, two. One is from the submitter. At the very least this should go to discussion if this is a question of whether or not this is a notable group.User:Listedit25 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Since when is a nominator's vote not counted? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote; admins are not supposed to count votes to determine consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not really a valid speedy, and not enough delete votes to warrant an early closure, so reopening the discussion for another day or two wouldn't hurt. Then again, it's unlikely to yield a different result either. -R. fiend 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist Editor Thydulff, at least, saw an assertion of notability even as he voted delete; ergo, this A7 is contested, and a full vote is appropriate. Xoloz 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reopen on AfD - any assertion makes it non-speediable, and as Xoloz notes, Thryduulf saw such an assertion. Let the full discussion run its course. -- Jonel | Speak 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - concur with Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs) on reopening. -- Jonel | Speak 01:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reopen old as opposed to stright re-list, with note saying explicitly that it doesn't end five days after opening but after five days run-time to avoid any mistake. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Fine by me. I've already gone and done it, so this deletion review may be closed. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I live in Jerusalem and travel around the world for work. I'm currently in Australia. Ted's Kiddush is a real group and well known within the Jewish Community. There are people from different countries and nationalities that come to see the kiddush. I vote to relist the entry. Billingdude 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists

was closed prior to the 5-day period. I am requesting that the question be kept open for the regular period. A number of comments have been made about the future of the article beyond the keep and delete votes, and nobody has summarized them yet. I will certainly accept the results of the vote; I am simply asking that it not be a speedy keep. As it is, the vote tally is 5 clear deletes, 1 anonymous delete, 10 clear keeps, 3 keeps with comments, and 3 comments. To me this is not an overwhelming consensus, and people obviously have a lot to say about the article. I should also point out that when I protested against the premature closing, I was threatened with blocking. I do not think that asking for a process to run its course is unreasonable. --Leifern 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh. This had run for several days, and a clear consensus had emerged to keep the article. Worse, it had turned into a slug-fest with people accusing other people of bad faith, puppetry, etc, so I invoked Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closings. It was also clear that while people felt the article should not be deleted, they also felt that it needed drastic cleanup, and it appeared from the history and talk pages, that said cleanup was already underway. Since things were already going in the right direction, I didn't see what good would come from letting the brawl continue for another couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• If the early close is contested in good faith (and the request above certainly seems to qualify) then almost by definition there was not the required "clear consensus". The standard necessary for early closing is virtual unanimity and even that has been controversial at times. The fact that the discussion has degenerated is, unfortunately, not enough reason to close the discussion early. Beg people to be more civil in the discussion but let the discussion run its course. By the way, it looks like the AFD discussion only had another 24 hours to go so the early closure seems to have backfired and is now extending rather than shortening the controversy. Rossami (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sure doesn't look like a "clear consensus" to me, especially if it would only have taken two or three more delete votes to change that consensus. It should not have been closed early, let it run its course. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I counted 17 Keep to 4 Delete. I just went back and recounted and came up with the same sums. How do you get "two or three more delete votes to change that consensus" from that? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm involved in two debates on this page today, one in which an admin is arguing that consensus has to be absolutely overwhelming to be called for purposes of deletion; another in which another admin is arguing that a weak consensus is adequate to close a discussion. In both cases, we are dealing with admins who feel that their judgment is the determining factor. I think that if there is a bias to keep articles in one case, the same bias should apply for keeping the discussion going. Just my $.02, but maybe the admins who proclaim themselves judge and jury on the process for deletion should discuss among themselves rather than try to preach to us lowly editors. --Leifern 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • If I'm looking at the same two discussions, the difference is between a regular close (at the end of the 5-day discussion period and which requires only "rough consensus") and an early close (which requires "clear consensus" and which has been interpreted as a much higher standard). Failure to qualify for "clear consensus" only means that discussion continues until the 5-day period runs out. The 5-day rule is a practical compromise set to ensure that the system doesn't get completely stalled. If you're looking at something else, though, please send a specific question to my Talk page and I'll try to help. Rossami (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Looking through the discussion, it looks like a keep consensus to me (not a "no consensus: default to keep", but an actual consensus to keep, which is actually kind of rare). Unless someone can point out that most of those votes are sockpuppets (I didn't recognize a bunch of the names, but nothing made me suspicious of them, and I didn't check their edit histories) I don't see any harm in closing this after 4 days instead of 5 when the result was so obvious, and the discussion was just dragging on and on. endorse closure. -R. fiend 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I'm with R. fiend here. While there is some dispute, the harm in reducing from 5-days to 4-days a debate which was 17k-4d is de minimis. Especially considering the article might as always be AfD'ed again, after a reasonable time, there is no reason to reopen immediately a debate that had become somewhat heated. Xoloz 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see any point in attempting early closures in cases where there is any significant dispute. Let them run their course. The article has a big, conspicuous "deletion" tag on it, no reader is going to be in any doubt about its status. It's one thing when you have a borderline CSD that gets eight deletes and no keeps in two days... or a borderline vanity page that gets a solid string of deletes and the author of the page asks that the page be deleted (to spare him further embarrassment, although they don't usually put it that way). I sometimes think "when in doubt, don't delete" is taken to an extreme, but certainly "when there's any serious doubt, don't attempt an early close." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - it appears that the premature close was allowed to stand. I'm just curious: is there something like precedence here? Does this mean that we can close a discussion whenever we like the way the votes are going, provided there's lots of debate about it? This is the only conclusion we can draw from this decision. Congratulations. --Leifern 02:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As Xoloz says, I'd say it was interpreted as a de minimis case of an error in judgement by the speedy closing admin. The outcome–keeping the article–wasn't in doubt, as you acknowledged: [22]. An extra day on AfD wouldn't have materially affected the outcome, so give RoySmith a little slap on the wrists for jumping the gun and move on. Short of a change in the deletion policy, I would discourage other admins from closing contested AfDs early–even when the outcome is a clear keep–but there's no point to doing anything further with this article. Everybody agrees that the outcome we've achieved (the article is to be kept) is the one that the process would have generated had policy been followed to the letter; the spirit of the process hasn't been frustrated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I accept my wrist-slap, and in the best tradition of Bart's chalkboard gags on The Simpsons, I hereby atone for my sin against wiki-process:
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.
      • I will never close contested AfD's early ever again.

-- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

6 February 2006

Sin (musician)

Was AfD-ed and deleted on February 6 and re-added by a new user same day, with identical contents. Duja 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but note that I would have voted to keep if I had seen the Afd, for the reasons stated by Estavisti. I see nothing wrong with the process here though, and the article should not have been recreated. - N (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I have re-deleted it as an identical copy of the AfDed version. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• It was re-created again, and I have again deleted it and protected it against re-creation. Golly, someone really wants this article ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On retrospect, maybe I shouldn't have AfD-ed it, and the guy might have been (but only just) notable ((t)he appears to have ONE album, still short of WP:MUSIC). I Googled a little for "Sizzerb" and lurked around those hip-hop sites, but didn't manage to conclude the difference, if any, among Sin, Sizzerb, DJ Vlad, 1389 records and so on (not that I tried too hard). OTOH, the author(s) of the article did not care to present any arguments on AfD, just reverting AfD tag and recreating the article. Duja 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep deleted. It's good to have consensus on this. Additionally this nomination was yet another violation of WP:POINT. I'm closing it early per WP:SNOW. If you disagree, list it on Wikipedia:Deletion review review (don't). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pedo

This template was speedy deleted with minimal comment, and does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. It should be undeleted, or at least undeleted into user space. It was speedy deleted as part of an ongoing wheel war on a different template, and appears to have been confused with that template. It is not a recreation of deleted content. --Dschor 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Inflamatory. No value to the Wikipedia. May be a violation of WP:Point. Hamster Sandwich 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. While not identical to the template that resulted in the firestorm earlier this week, this template is in poor taste and bringing it back is likely to be unnecessarily inflammatory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. Marskell 14:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. In principle, this is a recreation (even if not identical) of the previously deleted templates and smacks of WP:POINT big time, especially given the constant recreations of those two templates. --Deathphoenix 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This template is not a recreation, and was expressly intended not to make a point. --Dschor 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted No way I can imagine that this could help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be useful for folks working on pedophilia related articles to find other editors to help out? --Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It cited as a "talk page", dear Dschor. Try using them instead. From previous experiences, I'm inclied to think they work. -Zero^Talk 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted obvious fork of {user pedophile} which was wheel-warred and eventually burned with fire by Jimbo. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted, properly deleted as unencyclopedic, WP:POINT, disruptive, you name it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep that crap deleted. Seriously. --Fang Aili 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We wouldn't have all this userbox trouble if people weren't idiots when it came to them. -R. fiend 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think our determination of what constitutes idiocy may differ slightly. --Dschor 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dschor with an issue like userboxes sometimes you have pick your battles. We will never get everyone to agree to allow all userboxes and we will never agree to having them all destroyed. The best argument, in a situation like this, attempts to find a middle ground. We should concentrate our efforts to save the important boxes that contain political expressions and idealogies. Userboxes like this only serve to further polarise everyone.--God of War 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate that some templates are more popular than others. I do not think deletion should be a popularity contest. This template was created as an attempt to find a middle ground, but was deleted immediately. This box has no POV, no political expression, and is clearly not divisive. The fact that it can be speedied and kept deleted demonstrates that there is censorship in user space, and that it is not based on anything aside from the bias and prejudice of editors. I have chosen this battle very carefully, and would not be defending this userbox if I did not feel that it is a perfect example of why the deletionists are wrong. --Dschor 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Keep deleted. This template is slanderous in the clearest sense of the word. -Zero^Talk 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is clearly not slanderous, in any sense of the word. This deletion, however, has led many editors to slander the creator of the template - but the template itself remains NPOV, factual, and helpful. --Dschor 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia; I believe this template to be out of place here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. PLEASE...keep this same old template deleted. Why do we need so many pointless userboxes that upset people and contribute nothing. Enough is enough. This just another WP:POINT vilation. This is not even funny.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - If this isn't a valid CSD T1 then nothing is. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We can't use CSD T1 yet (as Jimbo asked us not to), but this template is polarizing nonsense. Ask Brion to take the edits off the database. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is an encyclopedia. ENCEPHALON 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - although this appears doomed due to vote stacking and intolerance. --Dschor 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid CSD. --FloNight 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Care to provide some evidence for the vote-stacking assertion? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• See above. This drv is full of folks who simply dislike userboxes, and who recognize that few wikipedians will go out on a limb to prevent the deletion of less popular templates. This userbox would be perfect for a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia, and really has no offensive content at all. This is an example of improper use of speedy deletion. Remember Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. --Dschor 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Best blond joke ever and/or Best blonde joke ever

• Hi. User:Lucky_6.9 speedy deleted the newly made article "best blonde joke ever." I think he did so unjustly. I don't think it meets any of the Criteria for speedy deletion. Some possible points for speedy deletion:

1. Recreation of deleted material - I think the original article was also speedy deleted. And this article is also quite different from the original. So No.
2. Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). - I think the article provides substantially more info than this example.

Some points in favour of it not being deleted at all:

1. A different person has made an article with the same title an theme earlier. Another different person has made "best blond joke ever" :).
2. It has 233.000 hits in google. A random article of lucky_6.9 "Eisenhower Medical Center", has only 78.000 hits.

And I would like to add: Wtf is it with this deletion system? I cant get the material back from the article, not even to review to make my argument. And finding and going to this page, which seems to be the only way to get it back, was not obvious to me. My guess is that you will discourage a lot of new potential wikipedians with this. Jonatan 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• It should probably be pointed out that best blond joke ever was actually deleted by User:Woohookitty for the reason "nonsense. the links are literally links to links to links." Best blonde joke ever was deleted by User:Lucky 6.9 twice. --W.marsh 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Blonde jokes. Kappa 00:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Best blonde joke? Not verifiable. Redirect per Kappa. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as a nonsensical non-article. If anyone wants to make it a redirect as Kappa suggests, they can go ahead, but it shouldn't be undeleted. -R. fiend 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• It's an obnoxious prank - an endless series of links that all hype a non-existent joke and link you to the next website. Keep deleted with prejudice because these pranks have no place in the encyclopedia. If necessary, create a protected redirect to prevent this from reappearing. (Note: There was one deleted version which attempted to argue that this has become an "internet meme". I do not find sufficient evidence to support that claim.) Rossami (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've created the redirects. Protect/redelete/whatever if necessary. -- Jonel | Speak 05:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ummm... undelete, but make into a useful article - the joke is fairly called "the best blonde joke ever" because, well, that's the core of the joke. It should, however, be a joke about the development and creation of this particular joke. As for the Internet meme claim, the nature of the joke is to be spread across dozens of blogs and journals in a pretty large chain - that seems fair game to me. Phil Sandifer 05:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Anyone remember "how to keep an idiot busy for hours"? This seems to be no more than a stale retread of a joke that wasn't all that fresh to begin with. Keep deleted unless and until someone can find verifiable third-party sources describing this so-called "internet phenomenon". —Charles P._(Mirv) 06:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment.

Kappa: It is not actually a blonde joke.

Rossami: While I agree that if it wasnt an internet meme, it should be probably be deleted, I think it definitely is. To back this claim I checked the meme article, found an example of an internet meme, and googled it. I found the term "Icy Hot Stuntaz". It gave 31.400 hits in google. Let me repeat that "best blonde joke ever" gave 233.000 hits. And thats even just the tip of the iceberg! (Since other blogs will have phrased it slightly differently.)

My main point of defence is that because of its huge size, many, many people will see it. And some will come to wikipedia for information about it. Why not provide these people that information? Because you yourself are not interested? I see no good reason. Jonatan 09:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete. Much more notable than the average wikipedia article. Can't see how any of you can claim that the article is nonsense. There are millions of users seeing this joke every day and many of them wants some encyclopedic information about it. That is very real. Wikipedia is here to give them that information. Of course the article should stick to what is known from reliable sources, rather than making guesses. The fact that the article were created independently twice and the information was added to blonde joke also attests to the demand for information about the phenomenon. In any case this review has already clearly disproved the speedy-deletion, since the topic of it's deletion is controversial. Since the article text is now unavailable it is essential that we get it back before we make a final consideration as to it's merits. --CygnusPius 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Have you seen the deleted Best blonde joke ever? It is 5 lines, has no context and is written so confusingly that I really doubt it's useful to anyone. --W.marsh 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD (whichever had more/better content, but note that blonde gets far more hits). Should not have been speedied because there seemed to be enough context to allow expansion, and the notability of the subject is contentious, so AfD is the proper place for this discussion. Without seeing the content, I make no comment as to which way I'd go at AfD. - N (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep as redirect, unencyclopaedic title, content is more than adequately covered at blonde joke, content was lame and smelled strongly of vanispamcruftisement. This was mostly about a link to a blog - I think they need to find a better way to increase their pagerank. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the deleted version, but without prejudice. If someone wants to make a useful and coherent article at Best blonde joke ever, fine, although it might very well end up on AfD. Undeleting the deleted version is not a really good idea, since a cleanup would involve creating an entirely new article anyway. --W.marsh 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

However, as I see the information on this meme is now covered in Blonde jokes, to where people looking for the 'best blonde joke ever' are redirected, I think that's a good solution. --W.marsh 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete This is silly. The article was wrongfully speedy deleted. We have no basis for arguing whether it should be deleted, since people can't see the content. For instance Just Zis and W Marsh comments seem to be about another entry, than the one I was talking about. I agree that the version I wrote wasn't very encyclopedic. But I didnt get half a chance to improve it. Since it was speedy deleted and gone within an hour. Jonatan 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can't speek for W Marsh but I'm an admin and can see and have looked at the deleted history. I see nothing encyclopaedic there which isn't already already covered twice, in blonde jokes and in how to keep an idiot busy for hours. This DRV seems to be an exercise in "how to keep Wikipedia busy for hours discussing the supposed non-inclusion of something which is already included." - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well I agree with that. There's no compelling reason to undelete the unencyclopedic version. I encourage Jonatan to work on Blonde jokes, which is where anyone interested in this topic will be redirected. --W.marsh 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• The bit in blonde jokes was only expanded after this discussion started, though. (Also it is factually wrong, or at least misleading.) I would like to question whether the meme should be included in the blonde jokes article, since it is not actually a blonde joke. However, is this the place to discuss that? Jonatan 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per W.marsh. --Kbdank71 17:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the article itself was nothing but a series of external links. That's a clear speedy deletion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• See this is what Im talking about. The article version I put in question definitely wasnt just a series of external links. But non-admins cant see that, since it was speedy deleted. Jonatan 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep deleted per W. Marsh. Xoloz 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• A clear keep deleted. I agree with Rossami, Mirv, W.marsh et al. Wikipedia is not LiveJournal or blogspot; it is (or aims to be) a serious encyclopedia. Articles in wikipedia are governed by the cardinal editorial policies of the mainspace. Text must be verified against independent, reputable sources. The original article contained the sentence "An internet meme that is now very common throughout the internet", and an external link to a flickr.com page.[23] It does not fulfill the barest, most elementary requirements of encyclopedia article-writing. The claim it makes is entirely unsourced. There are no books, monographs, theses, newspaper articles or other such sources that concern the subject. The subject, if we may dignify it by using that word, is such that no one will ever be able to write more than a couple of sentences about it—all likely unverifiable. The admins concerned were quite correct to speedy them; certainly an excellent argument can be made that the thing is little more than a hyperlink into the virtual maze that forms this limpid virtual joke. The argument is made that we should be providing "information" to the hordes of chaps bound to come scurrying to Wikipedia to reab about this thing. That's a very commendable sentiment, I agree. But what "information" are we to give them? That the joke is, in fact, a joke? That it is also an "internet meme" — an unverified claim? That it is the "best" blonde joke ever—a non-neutral POV? That's all? That isn't an article, and doesn't deserve a page, in my humble opinion. I agree with Rossami that protecting Jonel's redirects would not be a bad idea. This encyclopedia deserves better from us; it deserves the respect and care that go toward writing, wherever possible, beautiful, well-researched, authoritative articles that may be praised in Nature, not (with all due respect) careless, unverified claims that may be derided on CNN. ENCEPHALON 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I do agree with Jonatan in one respect: these things were speedied, and it is a fair request that a review of its status take place on AFD, rather than DRV. I have no problems with DRV per se, of course: in its latest form DVR is probably the most thoughtful, accurate and fair forum for the discussion of article-related issues on WP (yes, I'm aware that a small group of colleagues have quite different opinions). However, if the article under DRV consideration has never been reviewed by non-sysops I would ask that it be place under {{TempUndelete}}, and any newer version that people would like to contribute to be placed on an appropriate temporary subpage. It would be better to AFD. ENCEPHALON 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I cant really give you an article that will be praised in nature with this subject. But I could imagine some information which might interest people who look at the article.

For instance:

-What it is.

-That it is an internet meme, as you mention.

-That it is widespread

-When it started and by whom, if known. That this is unknown if it isnt. Perhaps some sort of "we know it is earlier than this" statement.

-How the initial link structure was, if known. That it is unknown if it isnt.

-If there actually is a joke somewhere. That this is unknown if that is the case.

-How fast it spread/is spreading.

-Comparison to similar memes, if applicable.

-A link to some site where you can see it.

Jonatan 23:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply. I could not have better enumerated why we shouldn't have this, Jonatan. All the claims are problematic.

I did not say that "it is an internet meme"—I said that's an unverified claim. The epistemologic status of the other claims is equally grave. Is it unknown if there is "a joke in there somewhere"? If you write, "it is not known whether there is a joke in there..." don't you really mean that you don't know whether anything is known? That's a big difference. After all, a large bunch of folks might have inserted some jokes along the way, and this might be known to a huge number of those people (but not you), correct? And therefore, you'd be writing something untrue into our encyclopedia, wouldn't you? There is a similar problem with the rest. These are the hallmarks of inconformity with WP:V, Wikipedia's most widely misunderstood policy. No matter how enticing it might be for us to write something in Wikipedia on a personally-liked topic, the first consideration is always that the fundamental mainspace policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:Copyrights) are observed. If any one of them isn't (or cannot be), the text should not be (or be allowed to remain) in the mainspace. Regards ENCEPHALON 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I wasnt familiar with the strict verifiability policy when I started this.

Actually, I think most wikipedians aren't. "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." This is very strict. By this criterion there shouldnt be any mention of the meme in the blonde joke article either. As I searched around a bit on wikipedia with this criterion in mind, I found an awful lot of material that was questionable at best.

I know this is not relevant, but I would just like to add, that I dont really like this policy. If it was actually followed, I don't think I would like wikipedia half as much as I do. For instance the list of unusual place names which is in question, should be deleted. And, I think, most of many of the articles about internet stuff.

Jonatan 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yebbut you can go to Slashdot or b3ta or wherever and see the internet crap, the point of Wikipedia (for me) is that it gives you knowledge that otherwise you'd only get from a large multi-volume encyclopaedia or your library. Look at Robert Hooke, there's information there which is collected from all kinds of places including at least one important book of which only a few copies are known to exist. And if you have those rare sources, it lets you share the knowledge with others who might be interested. Duplicating stuff that's already all over the internet is not what it's about, not for me, anyway. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can go to b3ta and see some internet crap yes. In the same way I can go outside and look at clouds. But Id also like to read about it.

I agree the Hooke article is good. Just a thought: There needs to be a reputable source saying that the external links are in fact external links regarding this guy, right? Those might exist. I doubt the one who wrote it had access to this though. Jonatan 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To give a more concrete example of my problem, take a look at the forum section of the Straight Dope article. Now, this was very useful to me. But I don't think there'd be much left if No original research was followed. Jonatan 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Marianne Curan

Out-of-process speedy deletion. Objection to speedy deletion properly filed, article deleted shortly thereafter. Subject of (quite lousy) article has an IMDB entry meeting notability standards for working actors. [24] [25] Hosting 3-4 shows on major (basic) cable TV networks like USA, GamesShow may not demonstrate excellence as a thespian, but at least puts her in the Kadee Strickland range of notability. Monicasdude 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I was about to vote "undelete" when I looked at the content. This sucks so badly that it's probably better to just wait until somoene comes along with a better article, so keep deleted because there is pretty much nothing here which would survive the necessary cleanup. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I said it was quite lousy, but it could quite easily be stubbed with an IMDB link added. Monicasdude 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm with JzG. A cleaned up version of what was deleted would be substantially different so as to not be a recreation of deleted material (CSD G4), so really, no need for undeletion, just recreate it in a better form. --W.marsh
• Agree with JzG, the article is crap. Keep deleted with no prejudice against a half-decent anything written under the same title. -R. fiend 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• At the moment, I'd have to go with Undelete and keep as out-of-process speedy deletion of notable subject, but you adminstrators have the advantage of being able to see the content. Would someone mind temp undeleting the page, or posting the contents here, so others can have a look? If it's that bad, I will recreate the page. - N (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Article was an unencyclopedic write-up for Super Decades, one of the shows she supposedly presented. I'd be happy to userfy it if anyone wants to attempt a rewrite and move it to the proper location when they're done. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes please - N (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted as written, Rewrite and keep if anyone feels like it. The article was one of the worst non-attack pages I recall seeing on WP. Here's a sample of the text: "those of you who don't know about GSN, SHAAAAAAAAAAAME ON YOOOOOOOOU!" It wasn't even about its supposed subject, Marianne Curan, but Super Decades. We are better off having no article than this one, so it should remain deleted. I do think Marianne Curan is notable enough for an article though, if anyone wishes to write a new one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Starblind, as the content described is useless. Valid A1 speedy. Xoloz 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Howard

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Howard suggests this article was to be deleted, and yet it is still there. Could someone look into this? To me it seems the whole article is a hoax, created by a confirmed anon vandal. Balcer 19:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like the closer just forgot to carry out the deletion. Easiest thing to do in such a case is drop a note on his talk page. In any case, I've carried out the deletion now. -R. fiend 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the Deletion Log, the closer deleted it on 24 Nov 05. On 30 Jan 06, it was recreated and edited by several users. Later that same day, Petaholmes restored the history. In doing so, he/she would almost certainly have seen the link to the AFD discussion. No explanation was given for the decision to restore. Looking at both versions, the current content is only trivially different from the deleted content. Given that all subsequent versions were still unverified, I endorse R. fiend's speedy re-deletion. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Armand Traoré

A football (soccer) player who was reported to have signed for Arsenal F.C. but reference to whom was not found on The Official Arsenal Website. It now emerges that reference can be found on the official website to him at [26], [27] and [28] (though the lattermost may possibly be yet another piece of Dudek-like "evidence"); these should constitute verifiable source to support a page on this player. --Pkchan 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The original reason for deletion was non-notability, and the reason still stands. Although it is now verified that he is at the club, he's just a 16-year-old who is nowhere near the first team - the only difference between then and now is that he has played one (just one) reserve match. Many other members of the Arsenal reserve squad have played more reserve matches than that, and do not have Wikipedia articles (e.g. Gavin Hoyte, Sean Kelly, Marc Elston). He is still not listed in the official Arsenal first-team squad [29] - until he is I do not believe the article should be recreated. Besides, the information on the official website (and elsewhere online) is still pitifully inadequate - merely his name and the date he joined Arsenal - there is barely enough for a substub at this point in time. Qwghlm 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment If the original reason for deletion is non-notability then I have no argument with the prior decision. --Pkchan 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted proper process for nn prof soccer player. --FloNight 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Foxymorons

I can't believe I'm really doing this, despite my deletionist nature. Speedy deletion of the above article (presumably as nn-band) was out of process. The article when I removed the first nn-band tag had a claim to notability, and what's more...(again, I can't believe I'm saying this) the band is actually notable. A glance to their site reveals a listing on Allmusic and their 3 full length albums. I'm willing to work on the article but I'd like to see what was added, etc. and would like an undeletion on the article. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment No need to get it undeleted. Just compose a decent stub, indicating what's notable, offline or your user page, and re-create it. List the albums, cite a review. Entire previous content consisted of the following two sentences: Dpbsmith (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mesquite, Texas-based indie-rock band made up of childhood friends, Jerry James and David Dewese. Formed in 1994, the band, who is notorious for its lack of touring, has released three albums to much critical acclaim.

Comment: Ah, OK. I didn't know whether anything else had been added to it before it'd been whacked, though. I'll write it up. Thanks. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

4 February 2006

Template:Commonsgallery

Despite its TfD discussion attracting 3 votes for delete and 4 keeps, plus a keep from an anon who has a few non-project contributions, User:MarkSweep closed the discussion as a delete on the grounds that "The result of the debate was better arguments for deletion than for keeping it." I dispute this decision on two grounds:

1. That is not the admin's call; the deletion discussions may not be votes, but closing admins are, as far as I've gathered from my experience on AfD, not court judges, there to decide which side 'won'; they are there to decide what the community thinks. It renders the whole 'discussion' thing slightly pointless otherwise.
2. Even if I'm wrong on the above point, MarkSweep's decision that there were better arguments for deletion is still extremely shaky IMO. None of the delete voters ever tried to argue the counterpoints the keep voters made against their arguments. These arguments included the fact that the template supposedly advertised for Olympus (it had a picture of a camera, far too small to make out the model). --Malthusian (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• As the closing admin, let me explain my reasoning in more detail. First, we'll have to discount one keep "vote" from an anon. Second, Nickj is using his "vote" as a vehicle for something unrelated, namely improving or changing Template:Commons. Nickj wrote: "That's why my vote is "keep", and it will continue to be "keep" until such time as Template:commons is improved." That's not a reason to keep Template:Commonsgallery. You don't go about changing Template:Commons by forking it and then voting to keep when the fork is nominated for deletion. Third, "Keep, useful template" by Ryan Delaney is fine, but it's not a relevant argument: Template:Commonsgallery was nominated here because it was a fork of an already existing maintenance template: and precisely because it is a fork of a useful template, it is of course useful, but that's not what this debate was seeking to establish. Fourth, there were three delete votes (by Netoholic, Petaholmes, and Phil Boswell) arguing that template forks are bad. The two serious votes in favor of keeping never properly addressed why the forked templates is needed. I completely ignored the bit about the Olympus ad as tangential to the discussion. Fifth, even if we regard the outcome of this debate as "no consensus", it makes no sense to default to keep in the Template namespace: templates, unlike articles, are tools which facilitate and enable; they should only be kept when they are truly needed. As I've said in my comments when I closed this discussion, I was much more swayed by the arguments for deletion, and in the end this is a discussion, not a vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - on the principle that forks are bad. FCYTravis 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Mark seems to be under the impression that the people behind the template have not bothered to explain what it is for, which is false: it has been extensively explained at Template_talk:Commons and the TfD. Briefly (I don't know why I'm bothering as I thought DRV was about process and not content, but FCYTravis has indicated otherwise): some of us believe the links to Commons galleries would look better if accompanied by a picture explaining what it was going to (e.g. a camera for a gallery of pictures). No-one's yet tried to claim otherwise, the only argument for deletion that's been put forward has been 'standardisation and maintenance'.
• I don't see how this was a 'fork' any more than {{test-n}} is a fork of {{test}}. Both do the same thing, but {{test-n}} does it slightly better in a certain context. Same with this. I admit that the name of the template does scream 'fork', being a redundancy; that was a mistake on my part. I was expecting to move the template to {{commonsimage}} as soon as the TfD was closed. --Malthusian (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Moreover, I'm not going to reply to MarkSweep's responses to why he discounted most of the votes on one side one by one (I've already explained why the 'serious voters' had, in fact, "properly addressed why the forked templates is needed"). But I will say that I think that if the arguments of a certain 'side' in a discussion are weak, it should be explained why they are weak at the time, rather than the closing admin waiting for the discussion period to end, discounting them, then waiting for someone to bring the TfD to DRV to explain why they were weak enough for the editors' opinions to be ignored. If nothing else it would save time. --Malthusian (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • TfD is a debate about the merits of templates. Rather than talking about "sides" one should talk about the outcomes of that debate and the arguments advanced in favor of them. If I see a weak argument or an argument that does not even address the central question of the debate, I call it as I see it. As for commenting on the merits of the various arugments before closing the debate: what do you want me to do? I didn't even know of this particular debate until I started to do my share in trying to clear out the TfD backlog. And if I had been aware of it and commented on it earlier, I wouldn't be in a position to close it. And by the way, I wasn't waiting for someone to bring this here. If you're only interested in saving time, then let it go and work on changing Template:Commons through the customary channels. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • *sigh* I'm going to have to surrender on any further discussion - I tried to reply to Mark's last post but couldn't manage to string three separate counterpoints together in a way that made any sense. I'm just going to say that I used the word 'side' in the sense of 'those who voted one particular way', not 'side' in the sense of 'cabal'. I think it would be worthwhile to have more illustrative {{commons}} templates, but if it gets shot down, well, c'est la vie. If I die in my sleep tonight and St Peter asks me 'And how did you spend your life?' I don't want to have to tell him that my last night was spent fighting a rearguard action over diversifying a Wikipedia template. --Malthusian (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted — MarkSweep is surely right in both principle and detail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• I have forked templates many times, as it is sometimes the only way to switch over from one design to another. I was not aware the cabal disapproved of it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Mel Etitis. --Kbdank71 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The fact that {{commons}} is seemingly perma-protected pushed me over the edge. If one cannot edit the template without going through various bureaucracy (requesting unprotection and hoping that succeeds, or getting consensus on the talk page - so much for being bold!), then forking may be the best option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. MarkSweep's repeated violations of deletion process are becoming more and more disruptive. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. - How can you can get an result of 5 to keep, and 3 to delete, and decide that "delete" is the right outcome? It makes a complete and total mockery of the concept of consensus. Secondly, for Mark Sweep's "reasoning" that he can disregard my vote, and the votes of others: I wasn't aware that we had ceded complete dictatorial powers to Mark Sweep, so if someone could point to the relevant official wiki guideline outlining his new overlord status, that would be super, thanks. Third, I note that none of the votes to delete were disregarded, so it's good to see that the fine example of Florida lives on! Fourth, the reasons for changing this were outlined extensively on the Commons talk page, and have still not been addressed. Fifth, the commons template is still protected - so, given that anything related get deleted, and the originally seems to be permanently protected, how, exactly, is anything about these templates ever supposed to be improved? Frankly, this really is an appalling decision. If you're going to ignore what the community says, then why even have a deletion process? I mean, really, why bother? Just unilaterally delete whatever you like, irrespective of consensus - it'll give the same result, but without wasting everyone's time by giving the illusion of wanting community input and general agreement. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Mark's justification here. However these exceptional closes should be explained when closing. Pace the squeals of outrage, please note that: (i) TfD does not have a clear numerical criteria for assessing when there is a concensus and (ii) the kind of carefully justified discounting Mark has undertaken here would, if done when closing the *fD dsicussion, be a good thing for the health of *fDs: if you object to these vote discounts, what discounts would you agree with? --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconded with a pat on the back and a kiss on the cheek. A great many of the discussions that take place on DRV could be avoided if closers took more care with explaining their thinking when they close. Rossami, in particular, provides clear evidence that he has thought about the arguments presented, and I've seen closes of his run to two paragraphs. This is a good thing, and should be more widespread. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for the feedback. You have a good point, and I've added my above comments to the TfD page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on TfD. Whilst Mark's arguments to delete are convincing, and convinced me that it should be deleted, there seems to be enough dissension to warrant a re-examination of the decision. 5 votes to keep against 3 to delete is not a decent consensus to keep, parituclarly given that the last two votes to keep were a) from an IP and b) two words, but I would have thought that this would be enough for the Template to remain pending further discussion. Deleting it was against the principle of consensus on deletion. If Mark makes the same excellently clear and cogent arguments to delete then I'm sure people will make the appropriate decision. And I think Nickj's reason for keeping is entirely valid - if he believes the template si necessary until the commons template itself is fixed, then that is a valid reason for him to believe the commonsgallery one should be kept. Proto||type 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It seemed a perfectly valid position to me, given the facts. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reverse and Keep as per the consensus what was the point of the votes if the deciding admin was going to maket he call anyway? Some nerve.Gator (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hey look, I lied, one more comment. MarkSweep's reasons for discounting most of the delete votes may make sense on the outside, but to me there seems to be equally good reasons for discounting the delete votes. One said "performs the same function as {{commons}}" (none of the counter-arguments to that here, on the TfD and on Template_talk:Commons have ever been addressed), another said (paraphrasing for brevity) 'template forks are evil, and advertises for Olympus'. Of that last post, the first argument is not an argument, the second rather nonsensical (maybe it was in jest, but Mark talks about "serious votes"). Why not discount those arguments too?
• Now at this point I think we can agree that it becomes ridiculous, having unilaterally discarded almost the entire debate, which is why I disagree with vote discounting on principle in all but the most obvious cases (sockpuppetry/trolling), for two reasons: 1) If an argument is weak, someone should say so at the time so its proponent can respond to the criticism without having to do it at WP:DRV, and 2) If the overall case for one 'side' (ooer, used that word again) is weak, then people will read it, be unconvinced, vote delete and the article will be deleted by an actual consensus (not just a consensus of "serious voters"). If the reason for the *fD not getting enough delete 'votes' was because it didn't get enough attention, then relist it. --Malthusian (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closing admin properly discounted "votes" which did not comply with policy directions; TFD page expressly says Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria [for deletion] above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. Voting standards were clear, and closing admin quite properly followed them rather than disregarding them. Monicasdude 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but my vote/comment/preference was discounted because of my mistake in pointing something out, not because of my reasons. My reasons are that the newer template is (in my opinion) clearer, easier to understand (both in language and visually), and more exact than the commons template. My conclusion therefore was keep. My mistake was apparently in saying that there would be no reason for commonsgallery if commons could be improved (but unfortunately, that seems to be impossible), and that in that situation I would most likely change my vote. Furthermore, it should be noted that this template doesn't even seem to pass the tests of whether it should be proposed for deletion: Is it helpful? Yes. Is it redundant? No, I don't think it is (see reasons above). Is it used? Yes. Is it NPOV? Yes. Was it a candidate for speed deletion? No. Therefore, it doesn't even seem to fulfil the basic criteria for being listed on TfD, let alone the criteria to actually be deleted. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

3 February 2006

1 February 2006

Template:Google

This is a complicated story. A template I created and have used many times in talk pages discussions (primarily related to WP:RM) was deleted as a "recreation" of templates with the same name that had been used for spamming the "external links" section of articles. The previous versions were deleted, either by TFD or as recreations, and with good reason. However, my version was independently created (seriously, I didn't even notice it's history at the time), and has had a useful life on Wikipedia for more than five months (mostly with subst). As a community, we are clearly accepting of external link templates, i.e. Category:External link templates, and so I see no reason why this should have been deleted.

A comparison of the current and past versions follows.

My version:

• Created: Aug 5, 2005
• Format: {{google|Foo}} = Foo
• Uses: WP:RM, WP:AFD, and talk page discussion, i.e. Wikipedia:Google test.
• Deleted: Speedied Feb 1, 2006 as "Recreation".

Previous Versions:

Created	Format	Used	Deleted
July 11, 2004	{{google|Foo}} = Google Search for "Foo"	Spamming external link sections of articles (see TFD)	Circa Oct. 2004 (no deletion logs yet): Via TFD
December 20, 2004	{{google|Foo}} = Google Search for Foo	Probably same	Dec. 24, 2004: Speedied as recreation
March 1, 2005	{{google}} = [30] on Google Note this version used {{PAGENAMEE}}	"Reference" section of a couple articles	March 8, 2005: Speedied as recreation
April 2, 2005	{{google|Foo}} = Google	Not sure	May 19, 2005: Second, brief TFD along with {{Googlethis}} which was another {{PAGENAMEE}} construction

As you can see, my version was longer lived than all the rest combined, and as far as I know was not being abused in article space. I know that others have referenced {{google}}, and though its use is not widespread, it is also not a single user template either. Frankly, my version was useful and used respectfully, and hence should not have been regarded as a recreation of the above mess. I would very much like to see this useful little widget undeleted. Dragons flight 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I can't see the need for this to be here. Undelete - make as 'never to be used in articles' - and list on TfD if anyone objects. --Doc ^ask? 11:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have brought it here, but the person who deleted it this time rejected my argument that it should be undeleted, so here we are. Dragons flight 12:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete Thryduulf 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (well, marked with deletedpage and protected). Search links are never encyclopedic. I'd also like to see a big notice posted on the protected page explaining that. For those few "good intent" situations like Project pages... you don't need a template. If we restore its functionality, it will end up being used in articles, and I don't want to be checking it every couple months. The argument that the community is "accepting" of External link templates doesn't fly because most external link template (IMDB, etc.) point to specific encyclopedic references. General search templates do not fit with that purpose, and where they are found they are routinely deleted via TFD. -- Netoholic @ 13:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that you can use google as an interwiki link. In other words, a template isn't really required... you can simply [[google:Foo]], rather than {{google|Foo}}, and it does purty much the same thing. Simple to use; doesn't require templates. Nonetheless, I can still see this being useful, so Undelete. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 13:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why the big delay between the deletion and DRV? Reserve comment on merits for now. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• There was really little delay. The template was speedied yesterday, and that is the specific deletion being contested. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• My bad. I was reading the table as encompassing ALL versions. I redact the question. Sorry for confusion. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per Blu Aardvark. I see how people can call it obsolete with the interwiki method, but I didn't know it existed until today. Regardless, it was deleted as a speedy which it clearly isn't. Whether this particular template is obsolete is something that should be decided by a discussion not speedy deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. if the template works properly, it will help expedite the sluggish AFD process in many cases. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:01, Feb. 2, 2006
• Undelete and list at TfD as the speedy criteria don't seem to apply directly in this case. Note I'd probably speak out in favour of deletion anyway since there exists another technique to do this, except that if this template is widely used, that would be disruptive to the pages where it was used. (although since it was mostly subst'd maybe that's not that many, what links here shows well less than 20 uses) ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD as not "substantially similar". If kept at TfD A large Do not use in articles might be a good idea, or would that be a case of WP:BEANS? Perhaps the creatotr would undertake to check for article links on a regular bassis, say once a month? Of course, the non-template method listed above might lead to TfD deleting this, but that ought to be discussed, not the result of a speedy. The tempalte method might actually make it easier to look for article uses, which i agree are improper. DES ^(talk) 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. As per WP:DP, "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article." Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• ...or of a common misunderstanding. Where within the general guidelines on external links do we include Google? Is it a reliable source? Ut leaves us in the position of effectively promoting whoever is most successful at search engine optimisation. But I guess that's a matter for the TfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• In general, I'm opposed to just giving some enduser encyclopedia reader a googlesearch in articlespace as if that was a well thought out thing. References, cites, and external links should be specific, and should have been reviewed or verified by the editor that placed them there for their credibility, applicability, and quality. Googlesearches by their very nature can't be that, as they return different things at different times. That doesn't mean this template is not useful in any way in projectspace or in articletalkspace. (for giving examples of how to find things, for making notability arguments and so forth.) What I think Crotalus was referring to was the idea of repeated independent invention of the idea as an argument that maybe the idea has validity, not that this template specifically be used in articles, per se. But as you and I both are saying, I think, is that it should go through a TfD instead of having been speedied. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• 'Do not use in articles but Undelete. I would vote conditional undeletion on TfD: that it be kept out of articlespace - but then that should be happening anyway. Septentrionalis 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - the issue about sourcing should be handled at WP:CITE. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or as a second preference, undelete and then list at TfD. As the deleter, I stand by my judgement that it is substantially similar (it just looks slightly different), but if others disagree with me, I still think that this is a template that shouldn't exist, due to the temptation of sticking it in article space. If people really want to use it, they can have it on the own user subpage. enochlau (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment and clarification. I agree that this should not be used in the main article space, but rather as an aid for directing others to the same page of search results in project-related discussions/talk pages. Idea: if you wrap class="hiddenStructure{{NAMESPACE}}" around it, nobody will be able to use it in an article. There may be instances where a search result link is approprate in an article, e.g. Google bomb, but that is clearly an exceptional case. I think we can do this, folks. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:03, Feb. 3, 2006
• Undelete and list at TfD Allow the TfD process to consider finer points we may be missing, but the template is clearly not a "substantial recreation." Xoloz 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this please and talk about it on templates for deletion it is not a recreate Yuckfoo 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD as per Xoloz et al. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• List on TFD as per many people above. Worth taking to a discussion. Proto||type 13:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete do not list - useful for discussions - do not use on article pages. Trödel•talk 15:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Template:User Antiracist hitler: Speedy deletion endorsed. 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Template:GermanGov: Kept deleted. 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
3. List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.: Original keep closure endorsed. 17:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
4. User:KJVTRUTH: kept undeleted, user subsequently blocked as sockpuppet. 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Category:Ambiguous five-letter acronyms: Moot request, kept deleted. 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
6. The Better Mod: Speedy undeleted, listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Better Mod. 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Clay Sun Union: Undeleted. As the deletion seemed to be in error (the members were AFDed, not the band) there is no reason for an automatic listing at AFD. It is free to be nominated by any user, however. 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Template:User no Rand: Undeleted, now listed at WP:TFD. 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Good Thing, Bad Thing, Right Thing, and Wrong Thing: Latter 2 merged. Any other issues are a content dispute, not DRV. 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
10. List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names: Moved to wikipedia namespace. 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) R. Fiend
    • Isn't it 25 Overturn/Relist and only 14 Endorse ? -- User:Docu
11. Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer: Kept deleted. 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Vampires F.C.: rdirected to Crouch End Vampires F.C.. 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
13. London Welsh F.C.: Undeleted (consensus seemed to be AFD was not automatically warranted, but it is open to an AFD nomination by any user). 17:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Lee Hotti: Kept deleted (protected). 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Gazeebow Unit: Kept deleted. 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Patrick Alexander (cartoonist): Kept deleted. 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Mesh Computers: Undeleted; out of process deletion, relisted for deletion and deleted on same day, should have remained relisted for five days per Wikipedia:Deletion process 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
18. SNK Boss Syndrome: Kept deleted. 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Colony5: Undeleted, currently listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colony5 (2nd nomination). 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Maria Pia Braganza and Rosario Poidimani : former redirected, latter kept deleted (protected). 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
21. David Dom and Karayana , overturned, narrowly missed deletion, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karayana and David Dom. - 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Male bikini-wearing speedily kept deleted. - 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Philosophy of computer science, kept deleted. - 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Template:User_ku_klux, kept deleted. - 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York, kept deleted and saw several like it sent to AfD. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Category:Lists in the Wikipedia namespace, kept deleted. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Template:User homosexual-no, kept deleted but with recomendations that people use TfD in future. - 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Aetherometry, kept deleted. 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
29. How to make a computer virus, kept deleted. 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Valhalla legends: undel+re-AfD'd, and BNLS AfD'd with it, per recommendations here. 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Category:German-American mobsters: can be recreated, but there are no articles in it at present. 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)