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.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 October 21}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 21}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 21|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Important notice: all userbox undeletions are being discussed on a subpage: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Please post all new such requests there (though you may link them from this page if you like)

15 March 2006

Charles James Abbott

This page was deleted by someone who felt that the subject was unimportant. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poloyoe (talk • contribs) 11:56, March 16, 2006 (UTC)

There is not much to review. An article consisting of one sentance about a nn person. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 11:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

and the page was created again with junk instead of the real page. what kind of business is this?

Series of articles created by user who do not meet the criteria for biographical entries. Keep deleted. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost or vehicle for spam. Elf-friend 12:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Valid speedy delete under CSD A7. David | Talk 12:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, keep deleted. I commend to Poloyoe the following: WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. Just zis Guy you know? 13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The closest this comes to notability is the claim that he's a member of a garage band. Unfortunately, the band in question has no Google hits besides their Myspace page and appearing in a "battle of the bands" night at a local high school (seriously, a local high school!). The only chance that the band or its members would have to survive an Articles for Deletion debate would involve a Y2K-style total meltdown of all technology globally and everyone living in a Mad Max-style wasteland forevermore. Therefore, keep deleted per WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, WP:SNOW, WP:VERIFY, etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

4000 (band)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4000 (band) (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/4000 (band)

Passes WP:BAND per "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" as their song/video was played on MTV Germany and VIVA. The sucessful 2nd nomination for deletion claimed it failed WP:BAND cause they only had non-full length albums (which is true), and the rest of the argument was false. I voted and helped improve it the first time around (under old user name), and apparently there was some mistaken thought that I was the creator. I know the stub is small, but it has some info that I dug up that I don't really want to have to look for again. --Grocer 23:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Do you have any sources for the MTV Germany or national rotation assertion? Because, it looks like everything in my original nomination still holds true. One used single on Amazon that has no Amazon ranking at all - and no entry on AllMusic. I'm not sure what other parts of the nom. you're saying aren't true but there better be a lot since the Afd succeeded 10-0. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Their moment of fame is from 1999/2000 and was limited to Germany, so not surprisingly, the information on the internet is indeed sparse. First paragraph is the original German, second is my translation.

    Medienpräsenz: JaJa Video Rotation auf VIVA2 1.&2. Quartal 2000, live Mitschnitt/Interview/JaJa Video bei Mixery Raw deluxe(VIVA), Interview D-Tonal (VIVA2), JaJa Video MTV-Fett/MTV Brandneu [1]

    "Media coverage: JaJa video rotation on VIVA2 1st and 2nd quarter of 2000, live recordings/interviews/JaJa video on Mixery Raw deluxe(VIVA), interview D-Tonal (VIVA2), JaJa video [on MTV shows] MTV-Fett/MTV Brandneu

    Jaja: Aufgenommen im Tiefenrausch, Köln. Rotation auf Viva & MTV '99. [2]

    Jaja: filmed in Tiefenrausch, Cologne. Rotation Viva & MTV '99.

    Neben dem Titeltack Krass sind noch An Alle und JaJa darauf , zu letzerem wurde auch ein Video gedreht, dass bei Veröffentlichung relativ gute Rotation bekam.. [3]

    "In addition to the title track Krass, there is also An Alle and JaJa on [the record], of which the second also had a video rotated, that after release received realatively good rotation.."

    jeder der musik fernsehen (mtv,viva,viva2)hat,wird schon in den genuss des "ja,ja" videos gekommen sein.. [4]

    "everyone who watched the music (mtv,viva,viva2), knows already the indulgence of the "ja,ja" video.."

    The fact that the AfD was 10-0 means very little. They were following your judgement and didn't contribute anything new other than one person looked up them up on Amazon.de. Furthermore, many of their votes were invalid since they do infact pass WP:MUSIC. --Grocer 02:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Keep deleted: Okay, now I'm controlling people's minds? It's called making a good argument and you still haven't shown how "the rest of the argument was false". A 10-0 Afd means quite a bit actually - esp. the 0 part. Not a single person could think of a reason to keep it. Lots of English-based bands are more notable than this - and still get deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Pardon my hasty summary, but you still painted a picture which wasn't fully acurrate. No, a band does not need two full length CDs to pass WP:BAND. And no, it did not only survive the first time because the "maintainer" voted for it in the previous AfD. --Grocer 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Sorry, Grocer, I know you are sincere in this but the evidence from the article is that this was a short-lived hip-hop crew with one minor hit to their name, and that's taking a broad definition of "hit". They will never score a chart hit, because they do not exist any more. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter_Fletcher

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Fletcher

Article was deleted because the admin Splash concluded that it was a soapbox and a "walled garden." He also makes unsubstantiated and completely inappropriate personal attacks on me in the deletion review, but I suppose that's beside the point. In any event, it got, by my vote, 7 delete votes, 3 clear keeps, 1 equivocal keeps, and 1 weak keep. This does not approach a community consenus, and Splash clearly made the wrong call. --Leifern 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Splash closed the AfD as a delete without prejudice to the writing of a new, NPOV article about Peter Fletcher. Having had a look at the deleted article I agree that it is POV, and that it would be better to start again. Hence, keep deleted, but don't stop anyone having another go at writing it. David | Talk 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Community consensus ≠ vote count. -Splash^talk 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, community consensus has to take into account the number of people who weighed in on the issue and whether there is a clear predominance of one view. In this case, relatively few weighed in, and there was no clear predominance of a view. Neither is Community consensus ≠ one admin's opinion. --Leifern 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If any decent article on the topic could be made without POV and non-notable, unverifiable text, then it would be a brand new article anyway. Deletion of article=/=permanent deletion of the subject.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Closer was well within his discretion to weigh the arguments, and give less credence to the voices of obvious POV advocates. A good closer is a wise closer, and Splash is the wisest I know. Xoloz 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, so editing and cleaning up is no longer an option in Wikipedia? If you disagree with an article, you can simply delete it, even if there is community consensus? Interesting precedence. --Leifern 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There is absolutely nothing preventing you from rewriting and reposting a better article. You might even ask an admin to drop the deleted text to your userspace as a start, as long as you promise not to repost it before making substantial changes. Xoloz 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • In this case yes, since quality was the issue. Re-write a good stub version or quit complaining...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yawn. Actually, if a kindly admin would like to drop the deleted text in my userspace as well I'll ask the Dept of Health to tell me about his career and get a look at the relevant page of "Who's Who". I know WP authors can't all be expected to have met their subjects for a biography, but ... Meanwhile, that particualr article should stay deleted, it was, as someone said about another article, unsalvageable, and the argument was not and is not about the article. (KD) Midgley 13:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. We do not need to keep soapboxing and borderline attack pages around just in case someone cleans them up (and manages to do it without being warred against by the people that created it). --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 13:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

13 March 2006

Stephen Glicker

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Glicker

This artcile has been listed as deleated for nearly a year now, however the site has grown enormasoulsy due to Steve's 'close' links with Spore. Alexa now lists thw website 28,137 (Alexa Listing for Gaming Steve

• Well, a little more than half a year, anyway. The Alexa rank is improved from the hundreds-of-thousandth of July to know about 29,000th over the last 3 months. I'm not sure that this is likely to persuade AfD, and nor is a rank of about 20,000th for this last week, since the graph shows that traffic is very spiky and that a one week average is not usefully meaningful. The graph shows that the site only hit Alexa's radar in December: I'm not sure that a site that's only been visible to Alexa for 3 months is for Wikipedia yet. I find nothing on Google News under either "Steve Glicker" or Steven Glicker nor under gamingsteve.com. The nomination here relies only on the Alexa rank, and thus, in my opinion, presents no information that is likely at present to change the result of the AfD, whether it is on the person or the website. If nothing better can be found, then Endorse deletion. -Splash^talk 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Definitely Reasoning: The Reason google news doesn't have any sources on Steve is because nobody has thought to tell google to put him into it's system. It has Stuff from the Clovis News Journal, and other sources Which Wikipedia has nothing about. You can't really use it as a determanation of noteablility. Although if you type in his podcast (Which also happens to be in the top 100 gaming casts on Itunes) You'll get multiple results. He's got one of the most respected gaming podcasts out there, Attracting attention from many people in the gaming industry including people at Maxis (Sims, SimCity, Spore) and Bethedesa (The Elder Scrolls) I really think it's noteable enough to be undeleted. Besides, You Say top 20,000 isn't notable enough. Sites like Langmaker and Trekweb.com Which Are currently signifigantly below Gamingsteve in Alexa.com Rank have had articles on here for months. So Yeah, I'd say the site and the man are more then Noteable. (Including in it's over 1100 members)--Sgore 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Fundamentally, nothing has changed; he and/or his site are still not notable.  RasputinAXP  c 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete His rising popularity is reason enough to undelete the article. However I too will cite the Alexa ranking and the cult following he has gathered. Additionally the interviews Steve has posted are with some very high profile people in the industry and are a testament to his status as a podcaster. ~PatMan33 22:35:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Wikipedia so far have been to this discussion and the userpage
  • second note: at 19:27, this user attempted to remove the contribution notice. see here
  • 3rd note, Actually this user has been a member for around a year and most of his edits were in an article that ended up being deleted.
• Undelete He is listed as a source in a textbook from our GSP course in college. He was under "Reccomended Reading/Listening". Mr Wizard 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Wikipedia so far have been to this discussion
    • Untrue, I just signed in to validate my vote.
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) at least for now. To answer the claim above, nobody needs to "tell google to put him into its system". That's the beauty of their kind of search engine. When lots of independent people start writing about his, the search engine will start to catch those writings. The recent Alexa rankings are worth watching but I agree with Splash that a short-term spike should not be cause to overturn our previous decision. If they stay high for an extended period, we can reconsider the decision then. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh yeah, you probably didn't find much under Steven Glicker, because that's a typo. He spells it Stephen Glicker.(Sorry Still Sgore, Logged out accidently)-72.230.6.138
• Undelete Google rankings are often a poor judge of notability. Googling "Village of Fools" will give you my web site, which I wouldn't consider notable enough for wikipedia, before it gives you results for Chelm, the original "Village of Fools," so to speak. At any rate, Stephen Glicker obviously is notable because of the very high popularity of his web site, the enormity of his web forum, the popularity of his podcast, and his interviews with very big people in the game industry. syphonbyte 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • contribution history
    • second note: at 22:58, anon user:24.4.244.243 attempted to remove this contribution notice. [5]
    • 3rd note: The contribution notice is uneccesary as he actually has tons of contributions but most people who see that won't bother to click it and will just think low contributions are being implied. Please don't post them for no reason, so confusion among editors can be kept to a minimum.
• I'm not currently seeing in this discussion evidence that anything has changed in a way that I interprate as "new information". Do we have any media references, etc, that shows a change on notability? While the proper forum for examining claims to satisfying the website inclusion guidelines is AfD, I'm not yet seeing any serious claim that this does. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• To Answer Brenneman you mean Besides the Huge steady Rise in it's alexa ranking since the article's deletion? A Multitude of of articles on Joystiq (AnotherVery Popular Gaming site with an article) mention steve, many articles themselves have been taken directly from the site: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Gaming+Steve%22+site:www.joystiq.com&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N (All 30 pages are Rock solid listing steve from Joystiq) Not To mention Coutless Blogs mentioning him, and Apparently Mr.Wizard's Textbook mentions him. There's also a gaming magazine article which mentions him and if I find it I'll put it here.--Sgore 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Barring the textbook and magazine articles that we're yet to see a link to, I'm still not seeing anything that satifies the reliability threshold. - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Clearly meets a threshold of notability. --Delirium 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have any proof of this, save for the frothy enthusiasm shown above? -Splash^talk 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment His site has been visited by very famous Developers. Will Wright paid his site a visit, and at a director from EA admitted that he listen when I asked him in a recent tour I took to EA Redwood Shores. Mr Wizard 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist. Very simply Steve is very well known in the gaming industry. Between his podcast (which is consistently in the top 50 rankings on iTunes), his site (which is currently ranked 28,137 in Alexa), his ranking in technorati (over 500 links from 294 sites), and his constant mentions industry web sites and printed magazines Steve is quite well known and deserves to be listed. Perhaps not a year ago when this was first entered, but at this point he has earned the listing. Stonesnake 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • another suspiciously new user whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been this discussion [6]
  • Wrong, His only edits have been in the Undelete section, but not only to this discussion. Please don't post misleading notes, it will confuse editors.
• Undelete. Noting his podcasts popularity is enough I'd say. A LOT of people listen to him, that makes him notable enough I'd say. Chris M. 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How do we know that a lot of people listen to him? - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Because there have been several references thus far to it's rankings in iTunes (if you'd look above). Maybe they don't listen to him, maybe they just download his podcast and then delete it, but at least THAT amount of effort still makes him notable :). Chris M. 05:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • While it's often the case that I'm dense, I don't see a link for iTunes ranking? - brenneman^{T}{L} 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Looking on Google I still see no reliable sources from which to build an article, just his own website and mentions in blogs (which confirm that he exists, but that's it). That's the very definition of non-notability and the reason we have such a definition. To those that are voting to undelete, please show me some sources and not 'this number is now x when before it was y, therefore we must have an article on him'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again to answer Brenneman The Way the iTunes Sytem works, You need Itunes itself to actually see these things, It's store is only visitable through the program as far as I know. And You can't actually link to them. You can find it easily though.--72.230.6.138 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'd need a lot of convincing before I took iTunes as a reliable source. Any thoughts on that, anyone? - brenneman^{T}{L} 12:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Same as my thoughts on Alexa, personally. Whether it's reliable or not, it's a number. It can't help us write a verified, neutral article on the guy. I know that people use these numbers to make judgements on notability, and I don't condemn that, but the issue of Alexa ranks etc. is secondary to the question of reliable sources. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Splash. I'm mainly commenting to help swat down the puppetry plague that seems to have developed on the question. Xoloz 11:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Surely articles such as this which will have a large following, high ranking and well know, a recent figure states that 10% of the worlds population visits in a month. This form of article, perhaps not a biography, but an article about his site and works, is definatly much more useful than a vast ammount of information on wikipedia, such as this--Dr dozzy 16:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I agree with Sam, Rossami, and Splash. And Brenneman. —Encephalon 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. I'm not convinced by the "new information" being raised here, and the sockpuppet parade doesn't help. android79 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure per Encephalon. Steve block talk 19:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question, Comment and More Evidance for noteabillity First the Question: You keep asking how these things show noteability. How don't they? Seriously, What is the set standard before you concider a site noteable. He's got a conciderably high ranking on Alexa, Which apparently doesn't count. He's got attention by some of the biggest names in gaming industry to actually come on his show but that apparently doesn't count. Nobody even took mention of all the times he's been mentioned on Joystiq, (30 times in one year on just one site is a lot, by anyone's standards) So apparently those don't count. He Build up and Sold a Very successful company, Which out of respect to steve I will not post the Link to. (He signed an NDA and I don't know what the conciquences of breaking that would be.) But If you do a minimal amount of searching on google you can find pretty easily the Company Stephen Glicker used to run. Apparently that doesn't count. If these last two things don't even count I'm starting to think Your standards of noteabillity change no matter what I post. And please don't call anyone sockpuppets. It's uncalled for. Just because someone may not Edit Wikipedia much, It doesn't mean they don't care just as much about the content. You have a vast Reading non editing community that you disrespect by acting like that. Anyway Here's the online version of the Magazine article: [7] (Note, It's from a German Magazine, called Pcgames, there is an actual issue you may be able to find if you go out to a store or something) And Finally, Gaming Steve's Google Maps Frappr(To show his wide fanbase): [8] These are both here not to do anything else then prove noteabillity. That's the Reason the Article was deleted and if it is proved there is noteabillity then there is an obligation to undelete it. If you look at all of the sources given throughout this whole thing, and you say to me that noteabillity hasn't been proved, I'm going to have to think that You've been prejudiced against this article being undeleted from the start, and that no amount of credable Noteabillity proving sources would change your mind. Seriously, It was deleted for reasons of noteabillity. That was the only reason. And Noteablillty has been proven here. For anyone to say otherwise now they really would have to elaborate more.--Sgore 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete as per alexa and itune rankings. Sparsefarce 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Kat Desktop Search Environment

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment (Second nomination)

This article was listed for AfD a while ago, and the result was KEEP unanimously apart from nom. It appears that it was listed for deletion again recently, but there was no vote and the article was promptly deleted. Not sure what this is about.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Undelete There WAS a second vote (found here) but with only one participant besides the nom. I'm inclined to say that's not quite enough, especially considering the points raised in the first AFD discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Relist —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete/relist I'm sure Splash will happily reverse this, as he said, for further consideration. Xoloz 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist is fine by me, as nominator this time round. Just zis Guy you know? 12:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted. Someone else can relist it if they feel that is warranted. Apologies for using the wrong link in my original deletion 'summary'. -Splash^talk 13:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kawaii (mascot) should be undeleted too, as it was deleted as a redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, though I'm not sure I understand Freshgavin's summary of the second discussion. The nomination did attract one vote, which was for deletion, and it was not 'promptly deleted', it was closed properly after a week had passed. With only a 2-0 consensus and a previous consensus to keep it should have been 'relisted to generate a clearer consensus', though. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no need to vote on relisting an already undeleted article. You can {{sofixit}} as they say. I deleted it, as you saw from my closure comment, because it was essentially an uncontested deletion in the nature of a PROD. The nomination was cogent and argued reasonably well (it is not merely a "d, nn kruft") and not opposed. -Splash^talk 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Originally, freshgavin hadn't spotted the second deletion nomniation because of my incorrect deletion summary link to the original VfD (as I already mentioned in my earlier comment).

House humping

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House humping
• Relist When this term was deleted in late October, the discussion focussed on whether the term had been used in MSM, and if so, it could be brought back from deletion. To wit, the March issue of GQ magazine (US edition) has a big article on House Humping (it's even blurbed on the cover). There have also been references to it in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and other papers in the US. I hear there's also a MySpace group devoted to house humping, though I'm not sure how relevant that is to undeletion. Again, I'm still new to Wiki, so I'm not sure I'm doing this right, but this seemed like the place to bring this up. thanks. St Germain23 14:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted. Looking at the March GQ online, I can find no mention of house humping; therefore, I must question the nomination's accuracy. Xoloz 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, I went to their site, too, and you're right, it's not online. The trouble with magazines is that not all their content goes into their online versions (if it was, they'd have a hard time selling their print versions). So, you can either go to a newstand and see for yourself or go to the MySpace group where someone scanned the article and posted it up - here's the scan. The text itself is a little hard to read, but here's a blog that transcribed it. Thanks. St germain23 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Currently functionally unverifiable fomr reliabel sources. Let's sit back and wait a while, there is no deadline to meet. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment With all due respect, what's "functionally unverifiable" about it? The phrase itself, or the fact that it was the subject of an article in a major American magazine? If you have any doubts about the latter, just do a google search for house humping and GQ and you'll see several references to the article itself. I appreciate your patience, but what exactly should we be waiting for? St germain23 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Also appears to have had one round of DRV, but I'm not keen to go looking for the diff right now.

The version I just deleted actually had less material than the last version but if I read the history correct that had more than the AfD version. So... while I'm confident that the version I deleted falls into "recreated content" I'm not 100% on that the last pre-recreation version doesn't deserve an airing here. I mean the "(Deleted revision as of 31 January 2006)" but don't know how to link to that.
brenneman^{T}{L} 10:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• The article was originally deleted on the 28th January 2006, the version deleted being here. The problem with reading the afd to my mind is that the article was nominated when the article was in this state. I think the comments regarding POV and vanity at the afd discussion could well have been addressed. I'm not sure how one addresses the comment alleging the article is nonsense, a quick reading of the nonsense criterion at WP:CSD quickly disabuses us of the notion that this article is nonsense as it applies to the deletion process, there is obviously salvagble material here. The other comments from users averring delete fail to quantify their opinions beyond nn. Since an afd is not a vote but a discussion, it's hard to read those comments and gather why the people in question wish to delete the page, since they do not assert why the cartoonist is not notable. I would hope this review could address that situation here.

• I will declare my bias at start. I believe the article should be kept as the cartoonist is, as averred in the article, a nationally published cartoonist. I would hope people agree that a nationally published cartoonist is notable. Steve block talk 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing of substance has changed since the AfD and previous DRV, for which the content was temporarily undeleted. Let's wait a while and see if six months or so makes a difference. User:DollyD's zealousness in promoting this cause is commendable but after six deletions and one move from another location where the deleted content was also re-created good faith is wearing a little thin. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I appreciate your comments, but first up, an awful lot of those six deletions were because of process warring rather than proper deletions. Secondly, what page move? Thirdly, the new page isn't created by Dolly D, and I think your statements towards that user indicate bad faith. Finally, you still haven't addressed the process. Was there consensus to delete or not? Are you satisfied that the deletion debate was robust enough and comments and thoughts were exchanged such that a consensual delete could be justified? Steve block talk 12:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I also want to make clear my belief that the original drv failed in its duty; mainly due to the fact that there was no clear process that was under review; a non-admin kept the page, an admin over-ruled. Another admin over-ruled that over-ruling and it all went downhill. I would hope we could focus this debate on the consensus to delete, rather than any sense of weariness over discussing the issue or recreations of the page. Steve block talk 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Aye, I made a mistake here. Looking at the article's actual AfD as opposed to being distracted by the silliness, I think the close was questionable enough to not have warranted re-deletion, although every "box was ticked" so to speak. A better solution would have been another trip through AfD, along with perhaps a note on the two most recent contributor's talk pages. Trout slapping for me, and suggest restore and relist. Since I'm the deleting admin, and can reverse my own mistake at any time, I'm going to do so in the next hour or three if no one screams. - brenneman^{T}{L} 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure, keep deleted, padlock door and post a guard. I believe I have voted on at least one AfD for ths and an earlier Deletion review, if memory serves. I think consensus is crystal clear: not notable enough. Constantly recreating this strikes me as WP:POINT, or as JzG notes contrary to good faith. Are we going to keep debating this until a few committed souls get what they want when consensus clearly is unfavourable? Eusebeus 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Play fair I don't see your name at the afd, so it's unlikely you particpated there. I also don't see a consensus that a nationally published cartoonist is non-notable, since nowhere in the deletion debate was that issue addressed. That's my interest in the case. Can I also ask that we leave the personal attacks out of it? I'm quite happy to stick the article up on afd again, argue my case and have the thing decided one way or the other. It's just worrying when we can write referenced articles on nationally published artists and see them deleted, and yet have articles such as LUEshi stick around for ever with no sourcing or established notability. The worry I have is that there was no concept of a redirect to list of comic creators discussed, which your comment would once again preclude. I do sometimes question myself as to the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. Perhaps we could amend the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR so as to establish the supremacy of an admin's interpretation of a discussion at WP:AFD. Steve block talk 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article was considerably expanded during the last DRV, despite several deletions and protections which were apparently intended to prevent this happening. There is thus in the history of this thing a perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have played a part in the re-creation of this article. The article Patrick Alexander was a diambiguation page to which User:Arcita added text about Patrick Alexander the cartoonist. Forgetting all about the previously deleted article, I moved Arcita's text to a new article. The cartoonist seems to have at least one enthusiastic fan. Gaius Cornelius 18:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, an acceptable article. No standing consensus to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think my opinion on the AfD is fairly well documented already. Furthermore, since it seems that User:Arcita wrote the text of the current page at the disambig page, User:Gaius Cornelius moved it, and User:DollyD was nowhere near this, I find it highly unlikely that it is a recreation of deleted content. But I don't know, as I can't see it. I'd say let the past rest, and judge the most recent posting. Throw it on AfD--if people think the guy is non-notable, they can get a clean consensus to delete. (And no, I'm not touching that AfD with a 10-foot pole.) -- Jonel | Speak 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We should restore the better version from a few deletions back instead of the not-so-good version that I deleted if we're going to to do that. - brenneman^{T}{L} 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok by me. -- Jonel | Speak 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If a copy still exists of the last version of my original article, I feel that amalgamation of it and the newer article would be quite satisfactory. DollyD 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD for further investigation. What Steve Block says about this cartoonist warrants another go for this, especially if we have an expanded version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Although policy explicitly says AfD votes should be based on the article in principle, not its current state, many of the delete votes are clearly cast with reference to its state at the time, and therefore not properly cast in keeping with policy. Therefore it should be reopened and properly reviewed in its new state. --Delirium 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of this most recent Patrick Alexander article. This is NOT a recreation of my article and the content bears virtually NO resemblence to what I originally wrote. It should be judged on its own terms. Someone else obviously felt that Patrick Alexander deserved an article on Wikipedia. Which he does.

The fact is, Patrick Alexander is a notable cartoonist in Australian children's magazines and has a growing reputation for his webcomics. This can be easily verified by simple research or asking someone knowledgable about the field. DollyD 05:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that your opinion of Alexander is provably non-neutral, and your edit history includes only one edit unrelated to Alexander. Just zis Guy you know? 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I had edits on a number of existing articles (that I didn't create) unrelated to Patrick Alexander, but all except Brian Bolland seem to now be deleted or moved because they no longer show in my contributions. But who cares? You don't have to rely on my "non-neutral" opinion that Patrick Alexander is notable. As I said, this can be verified by simple research. Seriously, does anyone wish to discuss the actual notability of the subject?DollyD 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete/relist. There seems to be (at least) real disagreement about whether this new version is more meritorious than its predecessor. Knowing little else about the history here, another look seems in order. Xoloz 01:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Third culture

This was speedied, and deleted just as I was about to pull the tag. The speedy comment was "absurd", by which I guess the nominator and closer meant "patent nonsense", which it just ain't. No way is this speedy or even a Prod. It should go to AfD, where it has at least a reasonable chance of survival, given that it's a real term, has a quarter million Ghits, at least one one book about it and so on. Careful with that speedy tag, guys. (And was the closing admin asleep at the wheel?) Herostratus 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is the current redirect a problem, then? Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The redirect seems to work fine. If some material has been lost from the article-less Third Culture, maybe someone could dig it out for a merge. This should have just been a redrect in the first place. (Also, "Brockmancruft." :) · rodii · 13:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever it was, it absolutely wasn't patent nonsense. I've undeleted the history. —Cryptic (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is odd. When I posted this, there was no redirect. The page was apparently deleted and then turned into a redirect (which may have been for technical reasons? I think I recall something about, a page with a serious edit history can't be turned into a redirect straight out, as an anti-vandalism feature?) The page was literally deleted from my grasp, so the page have have only non-existed for a few minutes. Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• More Immportant Comment. No, the current redirect is in no way equivilant to the original article. A quick Google reveals two entirely different meanings for third culture, intertwined. The first refers to a book (and perhaps resulting meme) apparently based on a response to C.P. Snow's book The Two Cultures (these being science vs. the humanities). The second meaning refers to, basically, military brats and the like. There is (at leat one) separate book about that. (I infer that the "third culture" is the culture these kids -- neither American, nor European/Asian/etc depending on where their families were based, but a separate third culture. Anyway, the redirect goes to an article on the first meaning, and the deleted article is about the second meaning. (So perhaps there needs to be a disambig page). Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Now that the page history is restored, I see that that speedy tag was placed by an anon IP with two edits, this one and - interestingly - a revert in a different article of acceptable material by the same person who wrote Third culture, a named editor with 951 edits. C'mon, this is why we have admins do the actual deleting, to catch stuff like this. I know how busy and harassed closing admins are, perhaps we need more admins, and anybody can make a mistake, but still.Herostratus 18:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I did not delete third culture, but after reviewing the deleted article, there didn't seem to be anything worth merging into the article we already have on third culture kids, thus I didn't bring it up for deletion review, and added a redirect instead. It was replaced with a redirect to The Third Culture. I suggest a disambiguation page. — Matt Crypto 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, you created the redirect... I guess the deletion itself doesn't show up in the edit history.... Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hmph. So the result is several paragraphs by a 1,000-edit editor get deleted w/o any AfD or anything (by (in essence) an anon with perhaps a score to settle...). Enh, not big deal, but still its not a nice way treat him. Also I did not know about the article third culture kids. OK problem seems basically solved, I'm OK with with closing the nom, if that's appropriate. Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am confused by this whole thing. · rodii · 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a speedy close is in order, since everybody's reasonably gruntled, lest others fall prey to the mental state that has snared user Rodii? Herostratus 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• That's right, kids, don't this happen to you. · rodii · 05:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

12 March 2006

United Hardware

Article on same subject had been deleted as advertising, described as "spamtastic advertisement." New article written that was straightforward and objective, but nevertheless tagged for speedy. Speedied without substantive discussion despite at least two objections. Since new version of article was not recreation of deleted version, was not a speedy candidate. Monicasdude 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy, keep deleted. Articles are not that different, and the last deleted was also somewhat spammy. Much of the article was taken up with a list of places where the company's customer has locations. No prejudice against mentioning it in an article on Hardware Hank. Just zis Guy you know? 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and send to AfD.The article as it is doesn't seem to be total spam. I think it should have been Prod'd rather than speedied, in which case I guess it would have been pulled, taken to AfD, where it will almost certainly have lost, so it's kind of waste of time, but if they really are the 4th largest whatever they're not a speedy candidate, IMO.Herostratus 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not speedy content; it's a verifiable article on an actual company of at least moderate size. --Delirium 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

This was deleted on March 7, 2006. It was a rediect that redirected to wikipedia:userboxes.Apparently, it was a "soft redirect", though it was no different than any other redirect. I fought fouriously to keep it undeleted after some whacked out conspiricy, but the other side got thier way. I request this gets undeleted, as it's a pain in the ass to get to the userbox page and because it wan't really a soft redirect. Thank you. The Republican 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that I'd had to delete this redirect, and also userboxes. They were inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. Use WP:UBX instead. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  Which is also, technically, a cross-namespace redirect, though we tolerate it for expediency. If you're in the mood you can also delete Featured articles, Featured pictures, Featured lists and Arbcom — or maybe they should be taken through WP:RFD to keep the "whacked out conspiracy" out in the open :) Haukur

  The use of articlespace redirects starting WP: as shortcuts is fairly well documented (see Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces ). Obviously it's undesirable to have unnecessary pollution of article namespace. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Either undelete or delete (or turn into articles or dab pages) all cross-namespace-redirecting pages, including CotW (redirects to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week, an article-editing project), Disambiguation (redirects to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, a style-guideline page), and NPOV (redirects to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, an official policy). If the unlikelihood of a pagename to be searched-for for anything other than its use on Wikipedia: is not relevant towards whether that redirect should exist or not, and if the ease-of-use, helpfulness, and convenience of cross-namespace links to users is similarly irrelevant, I see no reason why any others are being spared. The above examples are even more compelling than the Userbox one, as while "Userbox" has no potential usage, meaning or value except as a redirect to the Wikipedia: page in question (hence why it's now merely a deleted page, benefiting no one and serving only to make a point to users who aren't already aware of the correct name of Wikipedia's userbox pages), "disambiguation" is a valid word in the English language and "COTW" and "NPOV" valid four-letter abbreviations. I'm sure there are hundreds of other, very similar cross-namespace links and redirects on Wikipedia articles; why was this one singled out?

  Having a deletedpage marker there (1) helps to notify people still using it that they need to update their links and (2) provides an opportunity for discussion should anyone want to start an article or articlespace redirect called "userbox". This redirect was "singled out" because I happened to encounter it. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is an interesting debate to be had about the utility and propriety of cross-space redirects of this kind, given the usual allowance for WP: redirects. Undelete/list at RfD, though (for once) I don't think Mr. Sidaway's speedy deletion was particularly egregious; it is something a could imagine a normal responsible administrator doing. Xoloz 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This already went through RfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Undelete. Either redirect or short description with links. Then protect if necessary. It will make it much easier to find the userbox page(s). --Singkong2005 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Arc Flashlights

On 1 February 2006 this article was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arc Flashlights. The stated reason was spam/advertising, which seems in error. The company (Arc Flashlights LLC) no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. There is an existing company with a similar name, but I don't think the article was about that.

The article is needed for historical business/technical reference as Arc Flashlights LLC manufacturered the first Luxeon LED flashlight, the genesis of a product type now widely used. There are many current articles on various flashlight companies, watch companies, etc, so deleting this one seems very selective.

I have no relationship to the company or products, flashlights are just a hobby. Request the article be undeleted. If there are any spam/advertising elements (despite the company no longer existing), I'll be happy to fix them. Joema 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that an article should be written on Arc Flashlights, which are notable and encyclopedic as a generic product. Based on the AfD, I'd assume that this article was like that, however. At least in the case of advertising, sometimes no article is better than one that violates policy. Please, though, feel free to create a NPOV article about the history of the product. Endorse closure as usual, without prejudice against an improved recreation. Xoloz 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK I found a cached copy of the article on answers.com: [9]. It definitely had problems and wasn't appropriate as written (although I've seen many worse articles that never get deleted). It should have been fixed, not deleted. I'll fix the bad parts and write a new article. Let me repeat for the record: there was no advertising/spam, as the company no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. The people deleting the article likely weren't aware of that. Joema 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note that the version found above is identical to the deleted article. It was started by User:Gransee, tellingly, so probably wasn't completely without a little WP:AUTOship to it. Arc Flashlights are clearly notable, and a proper article will not be a speedy, so go ahead and write it. The history can be undeleted behind it then. -Splash^talk 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

11 March 2006

Category:Roman Catholic actors

Postdlf deleted Category:Roman Catholic actors today as a recreation of a previously deleted category, citing an August CfD. At the time I (re)created the category, I was unaware of the previous CfD, and was simply attempting to subcategorize Category:Roman Catholics.

The parent category is hard to use as it contains several hundred articles (Special:Categories lists 802, which is after I moved a few hundred into subcats). I think the deletion decision should be reviewed, as Wikipedia:Categorization states: When a given category gets crowded, also consider making several subcategories. Group similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way that will make it easy for readers to navigate later. In my opinion, dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division. Gentgeen 07:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, and invariably assumes bad faith. David | Talk 14:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No bad faith on Gentgeen's part was assumed; it appears you've merely assumed that bad faith was assumed. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say that deleting using an edit summary of "Reposted in violation of cfd" and then sticking the {{deletedpage}} template on it was a pretty good indication that you considered bad faith was involved. David | Talk 14:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist without any prejudice against Postdlf. In the case of a CfD, the passage of time (and the increase in subject articles) can make a prior decision ripe for review. This is such a case. Xoloz 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist Gentgreen was unaware of the old CFD and Postdlf should have never speedy it as a recreation of a deleted category back in August --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consider not bothering to relist. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete since there is clearly a good argument for having for the category. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I believe that Gentgeen was innocently unaware of the previous CFD, but that's irrelevant as to whether the category should be recreated, as is the passage of several months since the CFD. If we allow CFD decisions to simply "expire," particularly after such a relatively short period, then the whole process is a waste of time. Furthermore, this category does not group "similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way," because it simply takes two unrelated traits and combines them to random effect; the religion and acting careers of these individuals have no necessary or obvious relationship as a group, nor is there precedent outside of Wikipedia for studying or classifying actors by religion, or for asserting that there is a meaningful connection between having a Roman Catholic faith and being an actor. Wikipedia is not for original research or analysis. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the argument about passage of time not a ludicrous one when examined? Most CfD debates have a tiny number of participants. The idea that a CfD debate months or years before should be a never-ending precedent against the existence of a category, or even one which is merely similar, is in severe danger of ending in the tyranny of the tiny minority who frequent CfD. Jimbo has often remarked on the brokenness of AfD and this is a classic example. David | Talk 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again. This is reccurent topic on CfD, almost always ending with deletion of the category. They present quite absurd view of the world and do not contribute with encyclopedic value.

Such categories are quite often created by people who are not able or willing to spend time on coherent and valid article but feel inner pressure to "contribute" anyway. The simplest way is to create a new "category". The current system of categories is very, very limited and need be overhauled (for example to have primary and secondary categories, categories with comment attached etc). Then the pressure on CfD will be reduced. Pavel Vozenilek 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, exactly as the official policy states at Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. --Kbdank71 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm puzzled by what Gentgeen says. Perhaps as a result of later edits, this category is not itself categorized (other than related to deletion) and has no subcategories. Moreover, the comment dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division: if this is relevant here, it seems to imply that Roman Catholic people are a category, while (a) Category:Roman Catholic Church suggests that in the WP sense they are not, and (b) in most of the real world (northern Ireland, etc. being unpleasant exceptions) I don't think they are either. Furthermore, I'm puzzled by what I infer as enthusiasm on WP for categorizing people by religion, sex, sexual inclination, etc.: to me, Tom Cruise is an uninteresting actor who appears in mediocre Hollywood product; his belief in "scientology", his sex life, etc., are merely of minor, gossip-magazine significance. -- Hoary 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mike H. That's hot 08:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on CFD. Presence of more articles than we used to which might fit into this category, and the presence of counterparts in other occupations such as Category:Roman Catholic artists (which seems to have as much merit as a category of actors) has changed the situation since the last CFD. Deserves further discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - for further precedent, the discussion on Cat:Roman Catholic painters was just decided as consensus deletion today. --Syrthiss 13:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus

If I understand correctly: "To nominate a page for undeletion, place the page title on Wikipedia:Deletion review, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry (Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)). "

I noticed that the article Colignatus has been deleted with no trace of its existence.

If there is a strong opinion that this article should not exist, so be it, but then I would like to have the text, to use in wikinfo, and it would be wonderful, if that is not too much work, if it is sent to me by email (see my talk page).

I started the page Colignatus in the main body of the text since it would allow readers an overview of my work as an economist. (See list of economists where I don't occur now.) My work is in various directions, but it would help readers to link these directions (as I link them up). And readers would generally not look at a user talk page since they might not know that I am a user (for the time being).

I also wonder who deleted me, and with what argument. There now is a distressing dispute on Borda fixed point, where another user User:Fahrenheit451 referred a year ago to my invention of that particular voting system, where I corrected the text, linked up with voting system, and where User:Rspeer suddenly started an attack that I consider to be full of bias. He apologized a couple of times for being too rash, but always came back with new attacks. As he started to remove other contributions by me with similar bias, I just wonder whether he is behind this removal. Though he need not be, of course. It just would help clarity to know who deleted it, and with what purpose.

Obviously, wikipedians are sensitive to users creating their own articles, but if you see the text, then you might agree that it is only short and factual, allowing readers to link up on proper content.

And if you would disagree about the content, perhaps a re-edit is better than complete deletion. Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• 04:12, March 9, 2006 Sean Black deleted "Colignatus" (No claim to notability) is the text on the deletion log, so it was not Fahrenheit451. I have sent you the text in email per your request. --Syrthiss 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Because of the inherent difficulties maintaining perspective, balance and a neutral point of view, we have a pretty strong prohibition against autobiographies. It's not an absolute rule but it is very good advice that if you're notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia, someone else should write the article. On that basis, I would strongly urge you to invest the time in other articles and in your userpage. Have faith - it it's relevant to their work, other people will find your userpage. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Many thanks Syrthiss. It is a relief to have the text again, and now I put it at Colignatus at wikinfo. (1) It is good to know how and why it got deleted. It is a pity that Sean Black did not warn me on my talk page. I hope he sees this and reconsiders his rash act. (2) Of course I'm not "notable". My work has been censored by the Dutch government, I'm waiting for this censorship to be lifted, and in the mean time (which is now for 16 years) I only show others indications about what the censorship is about, so that they can start doing something about that censorship. Thus there little chance to get "notable", at least in the common sense of citations, though I don't know how you would value the access statistics at my page at RepEc. Thus, I mean, that criterion is little helpful. (3) I knew about that autobio criterion, Rossami, but as you said, it is not an absolute rule. In this case I have really considered all aspects and decided that starting this overview article on my contributions to economic theory would be best, see the explanation I gave and wikinfo. I entered into wikipedia contributions on the minimum wage, tax void, Stagflation, Economic Supreme Court, Separation of powers, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Borda Fixed Point, Economics and Risk, not as original research as it was some time ago, but as encyclopedic review and reasoned argument with respect to the existing texts in wikipedia. My edits greatly improved the value of the articles to the readers. It would help readers to understand where these contributions came from and how these are linked in my work. For example you cannot understand the issue of the minimum wage if you don't understand that in the current set-up of economic policy making you are consistently lied to by the government. If that explanation of the usefulness of link up and reference to the original author is not convincing, so be it. (4) I have great optimistic faith that the censorship will be ended eventually so that people can freely use my work, but perhaps there first must be another world war or a Collapse. (5) However, it would be wrong for readers to go to my user page, since this page is editted by me for different purposes than an encyclopedia article on my work. Sincerely Yours, Colignatus 15:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE? The article as writen failed on all of the above. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I move for speedy closure on the grounds that this is being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colignatus and User:Colignatus is now indef-blocked. Resurrect the debate if requested by anyone when the other process is done. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Michael Crook keep endorsed. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Azure Sheep deletion endorsed. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Samurang undel'd, sent back to afd. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Halliburton shill kept deleted. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Savvica nocon endorsed. 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Random Acts Films kept deleted. 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Seduction Community majority to kd, but all those came before the rewrite, and those following it say it's ok, so created it from the userpage. 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy kept deleted. 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
9. John Bambenek kept deleted. 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Kirven's undeleted to be merged/redirected. 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Effinhot kept deleted. 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Llamacon relisted. 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Ivan Cherevko kept deleted. 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
14. List of Muslim Islamic jurists no action (renom seperately if needed). 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Advisory capital undeleted and sent to afd. 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Alina and Billysan. Speedy deletion endorsed, undeletion request withdrawn by nominator. 10:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Template:If defined et. al. Overturned and undeleted. 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Bashas' withdrawn by nom. 23:21, 11 March 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.

Proposed deletions

Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

History only undeletion

History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on Fred Flintstone, it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 October 21}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 21}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 21|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Important notice: all userbox undeletions are being discussed on a subpage: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Please post all new such requests there (though you may link them from this page if you like)

15 March 2006

Charles James Abbott

This page was deleted by someone who felt that the subject was unimportant. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poloyoe (talk • contribs) 11:56, March 16, 2006 (UTC)

There is not much to review. An article consisting of one sentance about a nn person. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 11:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

and the page was created again with junk instead of the real page. what kind of business is this?

Series of articles created by user who do not meet the criteria for biographical entries. Keep deleted. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost or vehicle for spam. Elf-friend 12:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Valid speedy delete under CSD A7. David | Talk 12:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, keep deleted. I commend to Poloyoe the following: WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. Just zis Guy you know? 13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The closest this comes to notability is the claim that he's a member of a garage band. Unfortunately, the band in question has no Google hits besides their Myspace page and appearing in a "battle of the bands" night at a local high school (seriously, a local high school!). The only chance that the band or its members would have to survive an Articles for Deletion debate would involve a Y2K-style total meltdown of all technology globally and everyone living in a Mad Max-style wasteland forevermore. Therefore, keep deleted per WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, WP:SNOW, WP:VERIFY, etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

4000 (band)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4000 (band) (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/4000 (band)

Passes WP:BAND per "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" as their song/video was played on MTV Germany and VIVA. The sucessful 2nd nomination for deletion claimed it failed WP:BAND cause they only had non-full length albums (which is true), and the rest of the argument was false. I voted and helped improve it the first time around (under old user name), and apparently there was some mistaken thought that I was the creator. I know the stub is small, but it has some info that I dug up that I don't really want to have to look for again. --Grocer 23:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Do you have any sources for the MTV Germany or national rotation assertion? Because, it looks like everything in my original nomination still holds true. One used single on Amazon that has no Amazon ranking at all - and no entry on AllMusic. I'm not sure what other parts of the nom. you're saying aren't true but there better be a lot since the Afd succeeded 10-0. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Their moment of fame is from 1999/2000 and was limited to Germany, so not surprisingly, the information on the internet is indeed sparse. First paragraph is the original German, second is my translation.

    Medienpräsenz: JaJa Video Rotation auf VIVA2 1.&2. Quartal 2000, live Mitschnitt/Interview/JaJa Video bei Mixery Raw deluxe(VIVA), Interview D-Tonal (VIVA2), JaJa Video MTV-Fett/MTV Brandneu [10]

    "Media coverage: JaJa video rotation on VIVA2 1st and 2nd quarter of 2000, live recordings/interviews/JaJa video on Mixery Raw deluxe(VIVA), interview D-Tonal (VIVA2), JaJa video [on MTV shows] MTV-Fett/MTV Brandneu

    Jaja: Aufgenommen im Tiefenrausch, Köln. Rotation auf Viva & MTV '99. [11]

    Jaja: filmed in Tiefenrausch, Cologne. Rotation Viva & MTV '99.

    Neben dem Titeltack Krass sind noch An Alle und JaJa darauf , zu letzerem wurde auch ein Video gedreht, dass bei Veröffentlichung relativ gute Rotation bekam.. [12]

    "In addition to the title track Krass, there is also An Alle and JaJa on [the record], of which the second also had a video rotated, that after release received realatively good rotation.."

    jeder der musik fernsehen (mtv,viva,viva2)hat,wird schon in den genuss des "ja,ja" videos gekommen sein.. [13]

    "everyone who watched the music (mtv,viva,viva2), knows already the indulgence of the "ja,ja" video.."

    The fact that the AfD was 10-0 means very little. They were following your judgement and didn't contribute anything new other than one person looked up them up on Amazon.de. Furthermore, many of their votes were invalid since they do infact pass WP:MUSIC. --Grocer 02:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Keep deleted: Okay, now I'm controlling people's minds? It's called making a good argument and you still haven't shown how "the rest of the argument was false". A 10-0 Afd means quite a bit actually - esp. the 0 part. Not a single person could think of a reason to keep it. Lots of English-based bands are more notable than this - and still get deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Pardon my hasty summary, but you still painted a picture which wasn't fully acurrate. No, a band does not need two full length CDs to pass WP:BAND. And no, it did not only survive the first time because the "maintainer" voted for it in the previous AfD. --Grocer 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Sorry, Grocer, I know you are sincere in this but the evidence from the article is that this was a short-lived hip-hop crew with one minor hit to their name, and that's taking a broad definition of "hit". They will never score a chart hit, because they do not exist any more. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter_Fletcher

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Fletcher

Article was deleted because the admin Splash concluded that it was a soapbox and a "walled garden." He also makes unsubstantiated and completely inappropriate personal attacks on me in the deletion review, but I suppose that's beside the point. In any event, it got, by my vote, 7 delete votes, 3 clear keeps, 1 equivocal keeps, and 1 weak keep. This does not approach a community consenus, and Splash clearly made the wrong call. --Leifern 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Splash closed the AfD as a delete without prejudice to the writing of a new, NPOV article about Peter Fletcher. Having had a look at the deleted article I agree that it is POV, and that it would be better to start again. Hence, keep deleted, but don't stop anyone having another go at writing it. David | Talk 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Community consensus ≠ vote count. -Splash^talk 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, community consensus has to take into account the number of people who weighed in on the issue and whether there is a clear predominance of one view. In this case, relatively few weighed in, and there was no clear predominance of a view. Neither is Community consensus ≠ one admin's opinion. --Leifern 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If any decent article on the topic could be made without POV and non-notable, unverifiable text, then it would be a brand new article anyway. Deletion of article=/=permanent deletion of the subject.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Closer was well within his discretion to weigh the arguments, and give less credence to the voices of obvious POV advocates. A good closer is a wise closer, and Splash is the wisest I know. Xoloz 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, so editing and cleaning up is no longer an option in Wikipedia? If you disagree with an article, you can simply delete it, even if there is community consensus? Interesting precedence. --Leifern 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There is absolutely nothing preventing you from rewriting and reposting a better article. You might even ask an admin to drop the deleted text to your userspace as a start, as long as you promise not to repost it before making substantial changes. Xoloz 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • In this case yes, since quality was the issue. Re-write a good stub version or quit complaining...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yawn. Actually, if a kindly admin would like to drop the deleted text in my userspace as well I'll ask the Dept of Health to tell me about his career and get a look at the relevant page of "Who's Who". I know WP authors can't all be expected to have met their subjects for a biography, but ... Meanwhile, that particualr article should stay deleted, it was, as someone said about another article, unsalvageable, and the argument was not and is not about the article. (KD) Midgley 13:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. We do not need to keep soapboxing and borderline attack pages around just in case someone cleans them up (and manages to do it without being warred against by the people that created it). --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 13:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

13 March 2006

Stephen Glicker

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Glicker

This artcile has been listed as deleated for nearly a year now, however the site has grown enormasoulsy due to Steve's 'close' links with Spore. Alexa now lists thw website 28,137 (Alexa Listing for Gaming Steve

• Well, a little more than half a year, anyway. The Alexa rank is improved from the hundreds-of-thousandth of July to know about 29,000th over the last 3 months. I'm not sure that this is likely to persuade AfD, and nor is a rank of about 20,000th for this last week, since the graph shows that traffic is very spiky and that a one week average is not usefully meaningful. The graph shows that the site only hit Alexa's radar in December: I'm not sure that a site that's only been visible to Alexa for 3 months is for Wikipedia yet. I find nothing on Google News under either "Steve Glicker" or Steven Glicker nor under gamingsteve.com. The nomination here relies only on the Alexa rank, and thus, in my opinion, presents no information that is likely at present to change the result of the AfD, whether it is on the person or the website. If nothing better can be found, then Endorse deletion. -Splash^talk 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Definitely Reasoning: The Reason google news doesn't have any sources on Steve is because nobody has thought to tell google to put him into it's system. It has Stuff from the Clovis News Journal, and other sources Which Wikipedia has nothing about. You can't really use it as a determanation of noteablility. Although if you type in his podcast (Which also happens to be in the top 100 gaming casts on Itunes) You'll get multiple results. He's got one of the most respected gaming podcasts out there, Attracting attention from many people in the gaming industry including people at Maxis (Sims, SimCity, Spore) and Bethedesa (The Elder Scrolls) I really think it's noteable enough to be undeleted. Besides, You Say top 20,000 isn't notable enough. Sites like Langmaker and Trekweb.com Which Are currently signifigantly below Gamingsteve in Alexa.com Rank have had articles on here for months. So Yeah, I'd say the site and the man are more then Noteable. (Including in it's over 1100 members)--Sgore 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Fundamentally, nothing has changed; he and/or his site are still not notable.  RasputinAXP  c 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete His rising popularity is reason enough to undelete the article. However I too will cite the Alexa ranking and the cult following he has gathered. Additionally the interviews Steve has posted are with some very high profile people in the industry and are a testament to his status as a podcaster. ~PatMan33 22:35:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Wikipedia so far have been to this discussion and the userpage
  • second note: at 19:27, this user attempted to remove the contribution notice. see here
  • 3rd note, Actually this user has been a member for around a year and most of his edits were in an article that ended up being deleted.
• Undelete He is listed as a source in a textbook from our GSP course in college. He was under "Reccomended Reading/Listening". Mr Wizard 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • note: this user's only edits to Wikipedia so far have been to this discussion
    • Untrue, I just signed in to validate my vote.
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) at least for now. To answer the claim above, nobody needs to "tell google to put him into its system". That's the beauty of their kind of search engine. When lots of independent people start writing about his, the search engine will start to catch those writings. The recent Alexa rankings are worth watching but I agree with Splash that a short-term spike should not be cause to overturn our previous decision. If they stay high for an extended period, we can reconsider the decision then. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh yeah, you probably didn't find much under Steven Glicker, because that's a typo. He spells it Stephen Glicker.(Sorry Still Sgore, Logged out accidently)-72.230.6.138
• Undelete Google rankings are often a poor judge of notability. Googling "Village of Fools" will give you my web site, which I wouldn't consider notable enough for wikipedia, before it gives you results for Chelm, the original "Village of Fools," so to speak. At any rate, Stephen Glicker obviously is notable because of the very high popularity of his web site, the enormity of his web forum, the popularity of his podcast, and his interviews with very big people in the game industry. syphonbyte 00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • contribution history
    • second note: at 22:58, anon user:24.4.244.243 attempted to remove this contribution notice. [14]
    • 3rd note: The contribution notice is uneccesary as he actually has tons of contributions but most people who see that won't bother to click it and will just think low contributions are being implied. Please don't post them for no reason, so confusion among editors can be kept to a minimum.
• I'm not currently seeing in this discussion evidence that anything has changed in a way that I interprate as "new information". Do we have any media references, etc, that shows a change on notability? While the proper forum for examining claims to satisfying the website inclusion guidelines is AfD, I'm not yet seeing any serious claim that this does. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• To Answer Brenneman you mean Besides the Huge steady Rise in it's alexa ranking since the article's deletion? A Multitude of of articles on Joystiq (AnotherVery Popular Gaming site with an article) mention steve, many articles themselves have been taken directly from the site: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Gaming+Steve%22+site:www.joystiq.com&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N (All 30 pages are Rock solid listing steve from Joystiq) Not To mention Coutless Blogs mentioning him, and Apparently Mr.Wizard's Textbook mentions him. There's also a gaming magazine article which mentions him and if I find it I'll put it here.--Sgore 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Barring the textbook and magazine articles that we're yet to see a link to, I'm still not seeing anything that satifies the reliability threshold. - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Clearly meets a threshold of notability. --Delirium 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have any proof of this, save for the frothy enthusiasm shown above? -Splash^talk 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment His site has been visited by very famous Developers. Will Wright paid his site a visit, and at a director from EA admitted that he listen when I asked him in a recent tour I took to EA Redwood Shores. Mr Wizard 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist. Very simply Steve is very well known in the gaming industry. Between his podcast (which is consistently in the top 50 rankings on iTunes), his site (which is currently ranked 28,137 in Alexa), his ranking in technorati (over 500 links from 294 sites), and his constant mentions industry web sites and printed magazines Steve is quite well known and deserves to be listed. Perhaps not a year ago when this was first entered, but at this point he has earned the listing. Stonesnake 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • another suspiciously new user whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been this discussion [15]
  • Wrong, His only edits have been in the Undelete section, but not only to this discussion. Please don't post misleading notes, it will confuse editors.
• Undelete. Noting his podcasts popularity is enough I'd say. A LOT of people listen to him, that makes him notable enough I'd say. Chris M. 04:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How do we know that a lot of people listen to him? - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Because there have been several references thus far to it's rankings in iTunes (if you'd look above). Maybe they don't listen to him, maybe they just download his podcast and then delete it, but at least THAT amount of effort still makes him notable :). Chris M. 05:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • While it's often the case that I'm dense, I don't see a link for iTunes ranking? - brenneman^{T}{L} 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Looking on Google I still see no reliable sources from which to build an article, just his own website and mentions in blogs (which confirm that he exists, but that's it). That's the very definition of non-notability and the reason we have such a definition. To those that are voting to undelete, please show me some sources and not 'this number is now x when before it was y, therefore we must have an article on him'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Again to answer Brenneman The Way the iTunes Sytem works, You need Itunes itself to actually see these things, It's store is only visitable through the program as far as I know. And You can't actually link to them. You can find it easily though.--72.230.6.138 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'd need a lot of convincing before I took iTunes as a reliable source. Any thoughts on that, anyone? - brenneman^{T}{L} 12:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Same as my thoughts on Alexa, personally. Whether it's reliable or not, it's a number. It can't help us write a verified, neutral article on the guy. I know that people use these numbers to make judgements on notability, and I don't condemn that, but the issue of Alexa ranks etc. is secondary to the question of reliable sources. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Splash. I'm mainly commenting to help swat down the puppetry plague that seems to have developed on the question. Xoloz 11:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Surely articles such as this which will have a large following, high ranking and well know, a recent figure states that 10% of the worlds population visits in a month. This form of article, perhaps not a biography, but an article about his site and works, is definatly much more useful than a vast ammount of information on wikipedia, such as this--Dr dozzy 16:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I agree with Sam, Rossami, and Splash. And Brenneman. —Encephalon 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. I'm not convinced by the "new information" being raised here, and the sockpuppet parade doesn't help. android79 16:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure per Encephalon. Steve block talk 19:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question, Comment and More Evidance for noteabillity First the Question: You keep asking how these things show noteability. How don't they? Seriously, What is the set standard before you concider a site noteable. He's got a conciderably high ranking on Alexa, Which apparently doesn't count. He's got attention by some of the biggest names in gaming industry to actually come on his show but that apparently doesn't count. Nobody even took mention of all the times he's been mentioned on Joystiq, (30 times in one year on just one site is a lot, by anyone's standards) So apparently those don't count. He Build up and Sold a Very successful company, Which out of respect to steve I will not post the Link to. (He signed an NDA and I don't know what the conciquences of breaking that would be.) But If you do a minimal amount of searching on google you can find pretty easily the Company Stephen Glicker used to run. Apparently that doesn't count. If these last two things don't even count I'm starting to think Your standards of noteabillity change no matter what I post. And please don't call anyone sockpuppets. It's uncalled for. Just because someone may not Edit Wikipedia much, It doesn't mean they don't care just as much about the content. You have a vast Reading non editing community that you disrespect by acting like that. Anyway Here's the online version of the Magazine article: [16] (Note, It's from a German Magazine, called Pcgames, there is an actual issue you may be able to find if you go out to a store or something) And Finally, Gaming Steve's Google Maps Frappr(To show his wide fanbase): [17] These are both here not to do anything else then prove noteabillity. That's the Reason the Article was deleted and if it is proved there is noteabillity then there is an obligation to undelete it. If you look at all of the sources given throughout this whole thing, and you say to me that noteabillity hasn't been proved, I'm going to have to think that You've been prejudiced against this article being undeleted from the start, and that no amount of credable Noteabillity proving sources would change your mind. Seriously, It was deleted for reasons of noteabillity. That was the only reason. And Noteablillty has been proven here. For anyone to say otherwise now they really would have to elaborate more.--Sgore 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete as per alexa and itune rankings. Sparsefarce 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Kat Desktop Search Environment

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment (Second nomination)

This article was listed for AfD a while ago, and the result was KEEP unanimously apart from nom. It appears that it was listed for deletion again recently, but there was no vote and the article was promptly deleted. Not sure what this is about.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Undelete There WAS a second vote (found here) but with only one participant besides the nom. I'm inclined to say that's not quite enough, especially considering the points raised in the first AFD discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Relist —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete/relist I'm sure Splash will happily reverse this, as he said, for further consideration. Xoloz 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist is fine by me, as nominator this time round. Just zis Guy you know? 12:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted. Someone else can relist it if they feel that is warranted. Apologies for using the wrong link in my original deletion 'summary'. -Splash^talk 13:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Kawaii (mascot) should be undeleted too, as it was deleted as a redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, though I'm not sure I understand Freshgavin's summary of the second discussion. The nomination did attract one vote, which was for deletion, and it was not 'promptly deleted', it was closed properly after a week had passed. With only a 2-0 consensus and a previous consensus to keep it should have been 'relisted to generate a clearer consensus', though. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no need to vote on relisting an already undeleted article. You can {{sofixit}} as they say. I deleted it, as you saw from my closure comment, because it was essentially an uncontested deletion in the nature of a PROD. The nomination was cogent and argued reasonably well (it is not merely a "d, nn kruft") and not opposed. -Splash^talk 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Originally, freshgavin hadn't spotted the second deletion nomniation because of my incorrect deletion summary link to the original VfD (as I already mentioned in my earlier comment).

House humping

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House humping
• Relist When this term was deleted in late October, the discussion focussed on whether the term had been used in MSM, and if so, it could be brought back from deletion. To wit, the March issue of GQ magazine (US edition) has a big article on House Humping (it's even blurbed on the cover). There have also been references to it in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and other papers in the US. I hear there's also a MySpace group devoted to house humping, though I'm not sure how relevant that is to undeletion. Again, I'm still new to Wiki, so I'm not sure I'm doing this right, but this seemed like the place to bring this up. thanks. St Germain23 14:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted. Looking at the March GQ online, I can find no mention of house humping; therefore, I must question the nomination's accuracy. Xoloz 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, I went to their site, too, and you're right, it's not online. The trouble with magazines is that not all their content goes into their online versions (if it was, they'd have a hard time selling their print versions). So, you can either go to a newstand and see for yourself or go to the MySpace group where someone scanned the article and posted it up - here's the scan. The text itself is a little hard to read, but here's a blog that transcribed it. Thanks. St germain23 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Currently functionally unverifiable fomr reliabel sources. Let's sit back and wait a while, there is no deadline to meet. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment With all due respect, what's "functionally unverifiable" about it? The phrase itself, or the fact that it was the subject of an article in a major American magazine? If you have any doubts about the latter, just do a google search for house humping and GQ and you'll see several references to the article itself. I appreciate your patience, but what exactly should we be waiting for? St germain23 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

Also appears to have had one round of DRV, but I'm not keen to go looking for the diff right now.

The version I just deleted actually had less material than the last version but if I read the history correct that had more than the AfD version. So... while I'm confident that the version I deleted falls into "recreated content" I'm not 100% on that the last pre-recreation version doesn't deserve an airing here. I mean the "(Deleted revision as of 31 January 2006)" but don't know how to link to that.
brenneman^{T}{L} 10:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• The article was originally deleted on the 28th January 2006, the version deleted being here. The problem with reading the afd to my mind is that the article was nominated when the article was in this state. I think the comments regarding POV and vanity at the afd discussion could well have been addressed. I'm not sure how one addresses the comment alleging the article is nonsense, a quick reading of the nonsense criterion at WP:CSD quickly disabuses us of the notion that this article is nonsense as it applies to the deletion process, there is obviously salvagble material here. The other comments from users averring delete fail to quantify their opinions beyond nn. Since an afd is not a vote but a discussion, it's hard to read those comments and gather why the people in question wish to delete the page, since they do not assert why the cartoonist is not notable. I would hope this review could address that situation here.

• I will declare my bias at start. I believe the article should be kept as the cartoonist is, as averred in the article, a nationally published cartoonist. I would hope people agree that a nationally published cartoonist is notable. Steve block talk 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing of substance has changed since the AfD and previous DRV, for which the content was temporarily undeleted. Let's wait a while and see if six months or so makes a difference. User:DollyD's zealousness in promoting this cause is commendable but after six deletions and one move from another location where the deleted content was also re-created good faith is wearing a little thin. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I appreciate your comments, but first up, an awful lot of those six deletions were because of process warring rather than proper deletions. Secondly, what page move? Thirdly, the new page isn't created by Dolly D, and I think your statements towards that user indicate bad faith. Finally, you still haven't addressed the process. Was there consensus to delete or not? Are you satisfied that the deletion debate was robust enough and comments and thoughts were exchanged such that a consensual delete could be justified? Steve block talk 12:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I also want to make clear my belief that the original drv failed in its duty; mainly due to the fact that there was no clear process that was under review; a non-admin kept the page, an admin over-ruled. Another admin over-ruled that over-ruling and it all went downhill. I would hope we could focus this debate on the consensus to delete, rather than any sense of weariness over discussing the issue or recreations of the page. Steve block talk 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Aye, I made a mistake here. Looking at the article's actual AfD as opposed to being distracted by the silliness, I think the close was questionable enough to not have warranted re-deletion, although every "box was ticked" so to speak. A better solution would have been another trip through AfD, along with perhaps a note on the two most recent contributor's talk pages. Trout slapping for me, and suggest restore and relist. Since I'm the deleting admin, and can reverse my own mistake at any time, I'm going to do so in the next hour or three if no one screams. - brenneman^{T}{L} 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure, keep deleted, padlock door and post a guard. I believe I have voted on at least one AfD for ths and an earlier Deletion review, if memory serves. I think consensus is crystal clear: not notable enough. Constantly recreating this strikes me as WP:POINT, or as JzG notes contrary to good faith. Are we going to keep debating this until a few committed souls get what they want when consensus clearly is unfavourable? Eusebeus 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Play fair I don't see your name at the afd, so it's unlikely you particpated there. I also don't see a consensus that a nationally published cartoonist is non-notable, since nowhere in the deletion debate was that issue addressed. That's my interest in the case. Can I also ask that we leave the personal attacks out of it? I'm quite happy to stick the article up on afd again, argue my case and have the thing decided one way or the other. It's just worrying when we can write referenced articles on nationally published artists and see them deleted, and yet have articles such as LUEshi stick around for ever with no sourcing or established notability. The worry I have is that there was no concept of a redirect to list of comic creators discussed, which your comment would once again preclude. I do sometimes question myself as to the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. Perhaps we could amend the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR so as to establish the supremacy of an admin's interpretation of a discussion at WP:AFD. Steve block talk 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The article was considerably expanded during the last DRV, despite several deletions and protections which were apparently intended to prevent this happening. There is thus in the history of this thing a perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have played a part in the re-creation of this article. The article Patrick Alexander was a diambiguation page to which User:Arcita added text about Patrick Alexander the cartoonist. Forgetting all about the previously deleted article, I moved Arcita's text to a new article. The cartoonist seems to have at least one enthusiastic fan. Gaius Cornelius 18:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, an acceptable article. No standing consensus to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I think my opinion on the AfD is fairly well documented already. Furthermore, since it seems that User:Arcita wrote the text of the current page at the disambig page, User:Gaius Cornelius moved it, and User:DollyD was nowhere near this, I find it highly unlikely that it is a recreation of deleted content. But I don't know, as I can't see it. I'd say let the past rest, and judge the most recent posting. Throw it on AfD--if people think the guy is non-notable, they can get a clean consensus to delete. (And no, I'm not touching that AfD with a 10-foot pole.) -- Jonel | Speak 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We should restore the better version from a few deletions back instead of the not-so-good version that I deleted if we're going to to do that. - brenneman^{T}{L} 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok by me. -- Jonel | Speak 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If a copy still exists of the last version of my original article, I feel that amalgamation of it and the newer article would be quite satisfactory. DollyD 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD for further investigation. What Steve Block says about this cartoonist warrants another go for this, especially if we have an expanded version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Although policy explicitly says AfD votes should be based on the article in principle, not its current state, many of the delete votes are clearly cast with reference to its state at the time, and therefore not properly cast in keeping with policy. Therefore it should be reopened and properly reviewed in its new state. --Delirium 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of this most recent Patrick Alexander article. This is NOT a recreation of my article and the content bears virtually NO resemblence to what I originally wrote. It should be judged on its own terms. Someone else obviously felt that Patrick Alexander deserved an article on Wikipedia. Which he does.

The fact is, Patrick Alexander is a notable cartoonist in Australian children's magazines and has a growing reputation for his webcomics. This can be easily verified by simple research or asking someone knowledgable about the field. DollyD 05:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that your opinion of Alexander is provably non-neutral, and your edit history includes only one edit unrelated to Alexander. Just zis Guy you know? 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I had edits on a number of existing articles (that I didn't create) unrelated to Patrick Alexander, but all except Brian Bolland seem to now be deleted or moved because they no longer show in my contributions. But who cares? You don't have to rely on my "non-neutral" opinion that Patrick Alexander is notable. As I said, this can be verified by simple research. Seriously, does anyone wish to discuss the actual notability of the subject?DollyD 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete/relist. There seems to be (at least) real disagreement about whether this new version is more meritorious than its predecessor. Knowing little else about the history here, another look seems in order. Xoloz 01:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Third culture

This was speedied, and deleted just as I was about to pull the tag. The speedy comment was "absurd", by which I guess the nominator and closer meant "patent nonsense", which it just ain't. No way is this speedy or even a Prod. It should go to AfD, where it has at least a reasonable chance of survival, given that it's a real term, has a quarter million Ghits, at least one one book about it and so on. Careful with that speedy tag, guys. (And was the closing admin asleep at the wheel?) Herostratus 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is the current redirect a problem, then? Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The redirect seems to work fine. If some material has been lost from the article-less Third Culture, maybe someone could dig it out for a merge. This should have just been a redrect in the first place. (Also, "Brockmancruft." :) · rodii · 13:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever it was, it absolutely wasn't patent nonsense. I've undeleted the history. —Cryptic (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is odd. When I posted this, there was no redirect. The page was apparently deleted and then turned into a redirect (which may have been for technical reasons? I think I recall something about, a page with a serious edit history can't be turned into a redirect straight out, as an anti-vandalism feature?) The page was literally deleted from my grasp, so the page have have only non-existed for a few minutes. Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• More Immportant Comment. No, the current redirect is in no way equivilant to the original article. A quick Google reveals two entirely different meanings for third culture, intertwined. The first refers to a book (and perhaps resulting meme) apparently based on a response to C.P. Snow's book The Two Cultures (these being science vs. the humanities). The second meaning refers to, basically, military brats and the like. There is (at leat one) separate book about that. (I infer that the "third culture" is the culture these kids -- neither American, nor European/Asian/etc depending on where their families were based, but a separate third culture. Anyway, the redirect goes to an article on the first meaning, and the deleted article is about the second meaning. (So perhaps there needs to be a disambig page). Herostratus 18:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Now that the page history is restored, I see that that speedy tag was placed by an anon IP with two edits, this one and - interestingly - a revert in a different article of acceptable material by the same person who wrote Third culture, a named editor with 951 edits. C'mon, this is why we have admins do the actual deleting, to catch stuff like this. I know how busy and harassed closing admins are, perhaps we need more admins, and anybody can make a mistake, but still.Herostratus 18:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I did not delete third culture, but after reviewing the deleted article, there didn't seem to be anything worth merging into the article we already have on third culture kids, thus I didn't bring it up for deletion review, and added a redirect instead. It was replaced with a redirect to The Third Culture. I suggest a disambiguation page. — Matt Crypto 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, you created the redirect... I guess the deletion itself doesn't show up in the edit history.... Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hmph. So the result is several paragraphs by a 1,000-edit editor get deleted w/o any AfD or anything (by (in essence) an anon with perhaps a score to settle...). Enh, not big deal, but still its not a nice way treat him. Also I did not know about the article third culture kids. OK problem seems basically solved, I'm OK with with closing the nom, if that's appropriate. Herostratus 00:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am confused by this whole thing. · rodii · 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps a speedy close is in order, since everybody's reasonably gruntled, lest others fall prey to the mental state that has snared user Rodii? Herostratus 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• That's right, kids, don't this happen to you. · rodii · 05:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

12 March 2006

United Hardware

Article on same subject had been deleted as advertising, described as "spamtastic advertisement." New article written that was straightforward and objective, but nevertheless tagged for speedy. Speedied without substantive discussion despite at least two objections. Since new version of article was not recreation of deleted version, was not a speedy candidate. Monicasdude 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy, keep deleted. Articles are not that different, and the last deleted was also somewhat spammy. Much of the article was taken up with a list of places where the company's customer has locations. No prejudice against mentioning it in an article on Hardware Hank. Just zis Guy you know? 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and send to AfD.The article as it is doesn't seem to be total spam. I think it should have been Prod'd rather than speedied, in which case I guess it would have been pulled, taken to AfD, where it will almost certainly have lost, so it's kind of waste of time, but if they really are the 4th largest whatever they're not a speedy candidate, IMO.Herostratus 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not speedy content; it's a verifiable article on an actual company of at least moderate size. --Delirium 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

This was deleted on March 7, 2006. It was a rediect that redirected to wikipedia:userboxes.Apparently, it was a "soft redirect", though it was no different than any other redirect. I fought fouriously to keep it undeleted after some whacked out conspiricy, but the other side got thier way. I request this gets undeleted, as it's a pain in the ass to get to the userbox page and because it wan't really a soft redirect. Thank you. The Republican 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that I'd had to delete this redirect, and also userboxes. They were inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. Use WP:UBX instead. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  Which is also, technically, a cross-namespace redirect, though we tolerate it for expediency. If you're in the mood you can also delete Featured articles, Featured pictures, Featured lists and Arbcom — or maybe they should be taken through WP:RFD to keep the "whacked out conspiracy" out in the open :) Haukur

  The use of articlespace redirects starting WP: as shortcuts is fairly well documented (see Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces ). Obviously it's undesirable to have unnecessary pollution of article namespace. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Either undelete or delete (or turn into articles or dab pages) all cross-namespace-redirecting pages, including CotW (redirects to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week, an article-editing project), Disambiguation (redirects to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, a style-guideline page), and NPOV (redirects to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, an official policy). If the unlikelihood of a pagename to be searched-for for anything other than its use on Wikipedia: is not relevant towards whether that redirect should exist or not, and if the ease-of-use, helpfulness, and convenience of cross-namespace links to users is similarly irrelevant, I see no reason why any others are being spared. The above examples are even more compelling than the Userbox one, as while "Userbox" has no potential usage, meaning or value except as a redirect to the Wikipedia: page in question (hence why it's now merely a deleted page, benefiting no one and serving only to make a point to users who aren't already aware of the correct name of Wikipedia's userbox pages), "disambiguation" is a valid word in the English language and "COTW" and "NPOV" valid four-letter abbreviations. I'm sure there are hundreds of other, very similar cross-namespace links and redirects on Wikipedia articles; why was this one singled out?

  Having a deletedpage marker there (1) helps to notify people still using it that they need to update their links and (2) provides an opportunity for discussion should anyone want to start an article or articlespace redirect called "userbox". This redirect was "singled out" because I happened to encounter it. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is an interesting debate to be had about the utility and propriety of cross-space redirects of this kind, given the usual allowance for WP: redirects. Undelete/list at RfD, though (for once) I don't think Mr. Sidaway's speedy deletion was particularly egregious; it is something a could imagine a normal responsible administrator doing. Xoloz 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This already went through RfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Undelete. Either redirect or short description with links. Then protect if necessary. It will make it much easier to find the userbox page(s). --Singkong2005 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Arc Flashlights

On 1 February 2006 this article was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arc Flashlights. The stated reason was spam/advertising, which seems in error. The company (Arc Flashlights LLC) no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. There is an existing company with a similar name, but I don't think the article was about that.

The article is needed for historical business/technical reference as Arc Flashlights LLC manufacturered the first Luxeon LED flashlight, the genesis of a product type now widely used. There are many current articles on various flashlight companies, watch companies, etc, so deleting this one seems very selective.

I have no relationship to the company or products, flashlights are just a hobby. Request the article be undeleted. If there are any spam/advertising elements (despite the company no longer existing), I'll be happy to fix them. Joema 13:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that an article should be written on Arc Flashlights, which are notable and encyclopedic as a generic product. Based on the AfD, I'd assume that this article was like that, however. At least in the case of advertising, sometimes no article is better than one that violates policy. Please, though, feel free to create a NPOV article about the history of the product. Endorse closure as usual, without prejudice against an improved recreation. Xoloz 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK I found a cached copy of the article on answers.com: [18]. It definitely had problems and wasn't appropriate as written (although I've seen many worse articles that never get deleted). It should have been fixed, not deleted. I'll fix the bad parts and write a new article. Let me repeat for the record: there was no advertising/spam, as the company no longer exists and their products are no longer manufactured. The people deleting the article likely weren't aware of that. Joema 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note that the version found above is identical to the deleted article. It was started by User:Gransee, tellingly, so probably wasn't completely without a little WP:AUTOship to it. Arc Flashlights are clearly notable, and a proper article will not be a speedy, so go ahead and write it. The history can be undeleted behind it then. -Splash^talk 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

11 March 2006

Category:Roman Catholic actors

Postdlf deleted Category:Roman Catholic actors today as a recreation of a previously deleted category, citing an August CfD. At the time I (re)created the category, I was unaware of the previous CfD, and was simply attempting to subcategorize Category:Roman Catholics.

The parent category is hard to use as it contains several hundred articles (Special:Categories lists 802, which is after I moved a few hundred into subcats). I think the deletion decision should be reviewed, as Wikipedia:Categorization states: When a given category gets crowded, also consider making several subcategories. Group similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way that will make it easy for readers to navigate later. In my opinion, dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division. Gentgeen 07:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, and invariably assumes bad faith. David | Talk 14:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No bad faith on Gentgeen's part was assumed; it appears you've merely assumed that bad faith was assumed. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say that deleting using an edit summary of "Reposted in violation of cfd" and then sticking the {{deletedpage}} template on it was a pretty good indication that you considered bad faith was involved. David | Talk 14:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist without any prejudice against Postdlf. In the case of a CfD, the passage of time (and the increase in subject articles) can make a prior decision ripe for review. This is such a case. Xoloz 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist Gentgreen was unaware of the old CFD and Postdlf should have never speedy it as a recreation of a deleted category back in August --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Consider not bothering to relist. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete since there is clearly a good argument for having for the category. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I believe that Gentgeen was innocently unaware of the previous CFD, but that's irrelevant as to whether the category should be recreated, as is the passage of several months since the CFD. If we allow CFD decisions to simply "expire," particularly after such a relatively short period, then the whole process is a waste of time. Furthermore, this category does not group "similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way," because it simply takes two unrelated traits and combines them to random effect; the religion and acting careers of these individuals have no necessary or obvious relationship as a group, nor is there precedent outside of Wikipedia for studying or classifying actors by religion, or for asserting that there is a meaningful connection between having a Roman Catholic faith and being an actor. Wikipedia is not for original research or analysis. Postdlf 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the argument about passage of time not a ludicrous one when examined? Most CfD debates have a tiny number of participants. The idea that a CfD debate months or years before should be a never-ending precedent against the existence of a category, or even one which is merely similar, is in severe danger of ending in the tyranny of the tiny minority who frequent CfD. Jimbo has often remarked on the brokenness of AfD and this is a classic example. David | Talk 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again. This is reccurent topic on CfD, almost always ending with deletion of the category. They present quite absurd view of the world and do not contribute with encyclopedic value.

Such categories are quite often created by people who are not able or willing to spend time on coherent and valid article but feel inner pressure to "contribute" anyway. The simplest way is to create a new "category". The current system of categories is very, very limited and need be overhauled (for example to have primary and secondary categories, categories with comment attached etc). Then the pressure on CfD will be reduced. Pavel Vozenilek 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. In my experience Postdlf is far too willing to speedy delete categories based on previous votes, exactly as the official policy states at Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. --Kbdank71 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm puzzled by what Gentgeen says. Perhaps as a result of later edits, this category is not itself categorized (other than related to deletion) and has no subcategories. Moreover, the comment dividing a category of people by their occupation is a meaningful division: if this is relevant here, it seems to imply that Roman Catholic people are a category, while (a) Category:Roman Catholic Church suggests that in the WP sense they are not, and (b) in most of the real world (northern Ireland, etc. being unpleasant exceptions) I don't think they are either. Furthermore, I'm puzzled by what I infer as enthusiasm on WP for categorizing people by religion, sex, sexual inclination, etc.: to me, Tom Cruise is an uninteresting actor who appears in mediocre Hollywood product; his belief in "scientology", his sex life, etc., are merely of minor, gossip-magazine significance. -- Hoary 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Mike H. That's hot 08:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on CFD. Presence of more articles than we used to which might fit into this category, and the presence of counterparts in other occupations such as Category:Roman Catholic artists (which seems to have as much merit as a category of actors) has changed the situation since the last CFD. Deserves further discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - for further precedent, the discussion on Cat:Roman Catholic painters was just decided as consensus deletion today. --Syrthiss 13:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus

If I understand correctly: "To nominate a page for undeletion, place the page title on Wikipedia:Deletion review, with the reason why you think it should be undeleted. Sign and date your entry (Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)). "

I noticed that the article Colignatus has been deleted with no trace of its existence.

If there is a strong opinion that this article should not exist, so be it, but then I would like to have the text, to use in wikinfo, and it would be wonderful, if that is not too much work, if it is sent to me by email (see my talk page).

I started the page Colignatus in the main body of the text since it would allow readers an overview of my work as an economist. (See list of economists where I don't occur now.) My work is in various directions, but it would help readers to link these directions (as I link them up). And readers would generally not look at a user talk page since they might not know that I am a user (for the time being).

I also wonder who deleted me, and with what argument. There now is a distressing dispute on Borda fixed point, where another user User:Fahrenheit451 referred a year ago to my invention of that particular voting system, where I corrected the text, linked up with voting system, and where User:Rspeer suddenly started an attack that I consider to be full of bias. He apologized a couple of times for being too rash, but always came back with new attacks. As he started to remove other contributions by me with similar bias, I just wonder whether he is behind this removal. Though he need not be, of course. It just would help clarity to know who deleted it, and with what purpose.

Obviously, wikipedians are sensitive to users creating their own articles, but if you see the text, then you might agree that it is only short and factual, allowing readers to link up on proper content.

And if you would disagree about the content, perhaps a re-edit is better than complete deletion. Colignatus 02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• 04:12, March 9, 2006 Sean Black deleted "Colignatus" (No claim to notability) is the text on the deletion log, so it was not Fahrenheit451. I have sent you the text in email per your request. --Syrthiss 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Because of the inherent difficulties maintaining perspective, balance and a neutral point of view, we have a pretty strong prohibition against autobiographies. It's not an absolute rule but it is very good advice that if you're notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia, someone else should write the article. On that basis, I would strongly urge you to invest the time in other articles and in your userpage. Have faith - it it's relevant to their work, other people will find your userpage. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Many thanks Syrthiss. It is a relief to have the text again, and now I put it at Colignatus at wikinfo. (1) It is good to know how and why it got deleted. It is a pity that Sean Black did not warn me on my talk page. I hope he sees this and reconsiders his rash act. (2) Of course I'm not "notable". My work has been censored by the Dutch government, I'm waiting for this censorship to be lifted, and in the mean time (which is now for 16 years) I only show others indications about what the censorship is about, so that they can start doing something about that censorship. Thus there little chance to get "notable", at least in the common sense of citations, though I don't know how you would value the access statistics at my page at RepEc. Thus, I mean, that criterion is little helpful. (3) I knew about that autobio criterion, Rossami, but as you said, it is not an absolute rule. In this case I have really considered all aspects and decided that starting this overview article on my contributions to economic theory would be best, see the explanation I gave and wikinfo. I entered into wikipedia contributions on the minimum wage, tax void, Stagflation, Economic Supreme Court, Separation of powers, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Borda Fixed Point, Economics and Risk, not as original research as it was some time ago, but as encyclopedic review and reasoned argument with respect to the existing texts in wikipedia. My edits greatly improved the value of the articles to the readers. It would help readers to understand where these contributions came from and how these are linked in my work. For example you cannot understand the issue of the minimum wage if you don't understand that in the current set-up of economic policy making you are consistently lied to by the government. If that explanation of the usefulness of link up and reference to the original author is not convincing, so be it. (4) I have great optimistic faith that the censorship will be ended eventually so that people can freely use my work, but perhaps there first must be another world war or a Collapse. (5) However, it would be wrong for readers to go to my user page, since this page is editted by me for different purposes than an encyclopedia article on my work. Sincerely Yours, Colignatus 15:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE? The article as writen failed on all of the above. Just zis Guy you know? 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I move for speedy closure on the grounds that this is being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colignatus and User:Colignatus is now indef-blocked. Resurrect the debate if requested by anyone when the other process is done. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Michael Crook keep endorsed. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Azure Sheep deletion endorsed. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Samurang undel'd, sent back to afd. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Halliburton shill kept deleted. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Savvica nocon endorsed. 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Random Acts Films kept deleted. 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Seduction Community majority to kd, but all those came before the rewrite, and those following it say it's ok, so created it from the userpage. 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy kept deleted. 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
9. John Bambenek kept deleted. 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Kirven's undeleted to be merged/redirected. 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Effinhot kept deleted. 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Llamacon relisted. 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Ivan Cherevko kept deleted. 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
14. List of Muslim Islamic jurists no action (renom seperately if needed). 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Advisory capital undeleted and sent to afd. 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Alina and Billysan. Speedy deletion endorsed, undeletion request withdrawn by nominator. 10:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Template:If defined et. al. Overturned and undeleted. 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Bashas' withdrawn by nom. 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)