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. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

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.

• Can someone please temporarily undelete Badger Badger Badger Parodies as I intend to place it on adhocipedia (see my userpage). CMIIW 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are you? Please sign your post with ~~~~. Rossami (talk)
• I will be very grateful if a kind administrator posted the contents of the deleted userboxes Drug-free, atheist, evolution2, evol-N and antiuserboxdeletion at a subpage of my userbox for userification. By moving them to the userspace, T1/T2 won't apply. Thanks. Loom91 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No one will help me? Loom91 08:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll help you userfy them. Metamagician3000 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

• Hazelwood Central High School - This was actually kept in AFD, but deleted for being empty. I made a redirect. For the moment, I wish the history to be undeleted. Then I can review it, and decide if it should be a stand-alone article, or remain a redirect. Please note, some older versions have a copyvio, so be sure to restore an appropriate version. It might be, that without the copyvio, there's not enough for an article, which I'll know when I see it. --Rob 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... that was one of the few school articles I have voted to delete, and I am almost inclined to call the speedy deletion as a valid application of A3. Nonetheless, a history only undeletion isn't harmful so I have done so. Please make some real expansions to the article before "articleizing" this redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on my recollection, the entire article was pretty much a cut and paste from the school district web site, so I don't think you'll find anything to salvage. Fan1967 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Religion of Peace - I'd like to see, whether the issues of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religion_of_Peace have been addressed. Raphael1 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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 November 9}}</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 November 9}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 9|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".

30 May 2006

Springfield M21

The closer made an error in their assessment of the discussion. They saw 4-2 delete/redirect. However, the first delete vote was qualified that "if the redirect is incorrect". After consulting with editors at the target article, the redirect was shown to be appropriate. This would mean 3/3, no consensus. Furthermore, the discussion with the editors at the redirect target (M21 (rifle)) are a good argument for redirection. Another point is that some voters determined that the article was invalid because its topic did not exist. This was based on a statement made in the article. However, statements by editors at Talk:M21 (rifle) suggest that that statement was not accurate. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ultra-weak overturn and redirect to M21 (rifle): While the AfD itself seemed to be valid, I don't think that the earlier voters considered the discussion in the above-mentioned talk page. M21 (rifle) is a very good target for this article. That being said, the article as it stood when AfDed really wasn't that good (an article that begins by saying that there it doesn't exist?), so I think a good alternative would be to just create a redirect while leaving the article history deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see anything in the history that was necessary to merge to the target article. Since deletion does not prevent the creation of new content at the same title, I have been bold and created the redirect. I see no harm in a history-only undeletion when the DRV discussion is complete. Rossami (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User CCP

Not sure why this was deleted. Userboxes are allowed for basically all major political parties in the world. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political_Parties. Can someone cite the reason it was deleted? And should it be undeleted? Hong Qi Gong 03:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)#

• Endorse deletion. Who on earth told you that those templates were allowed? They're all subject to summary deletion according to T1. --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  By virtue of the fact that they are still in existence, and nobody has tagged them for deletion, that's why I'm implying that they're allowed. Hong Qi Gong 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  That's not valid. That's like saying because I'm chewing gum in class and the teacher hasn't noticed yet, everyone's allowed to chew gum in class. Ral315 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  Not so, your analogy is incorrect. All those Userboxes for political parties are listed in public. It is as if the teacher is aware that you are chewing gum, but does not tell you to stop. So yes, they are in fact allowed. Hong Qi Gong 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, give us a chance. We'll get around to the others in time. It wouldn't be very nice to just delete the whole lot of them at once. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  I cannot understand the point in NOT deleting them all at once if political userboxes are indeed banned. It seems to me you want it to slip under the radar as it were. - Hahnchen 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well we certainly don't want to go for mass deletions. This is the middle way. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well why not go for mass deletion? There is basically no reason to keep certain political parties around, yet delete certain other ones. Hong Qi Gong 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  I agree, why not mass deletion? If it's against the rules, I'm sure someone higher up can just delete the whole page of political userboxes. If it's according to some "T1" rule, then you either delete all or keep all, there's no "middle way". BlueShirts 06:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  When there is a mass deletion it draws enough people to DRV to actually overturn the decision. When it is just a few at a time it can come in under the radar. More people need to monitor TfD and DRV if they really want to represent their view. It is an interesting pattern where if a userbox goes to TfD it has a good chance of suriving. It if goes via speedy to DRV then it is much harder to get a concensus, or super majority, or act of local deity to get it restored. Some of the boxes have been here multiple times over the last six months. It it doesn't work the first time the deletionists keep coming back since it is apparently acceptable to use T1 multiple times on one template. If someone else restores the template then it suddenly becomes wheel warring and the bans start. --StuffOfInterest 13:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion via T1. Ral315 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - no ideological stuff in template space, per T1.5, or whatever it's called. It's certainly nothing personal; they're all on the way out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete invalid deletion. Tolerance is less divisive. --70.218.3.206 05:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Everyking 06:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Somewhere, someone should try to back to the concept of concensus. --StuffOfInterest 10:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - classic example of a T2 box. Metamagician3000 10:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  T2 is currently not policy. Read Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. --User:Cuivienen 30 May 2006]] at 12:40 (UTC)

  That's moot; T1 is commonly interpreted to include templates that fall under the T2 proposal, and the community has repeatedly endorsed this interpretation on review. --Tony Sidaway 12:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  [1] Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  "commonly interpreted" is contradicted by the discussion at Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. There is a group that holds this interpretation, there is another group that disagrees. Size of both groups inadequately measured to say which is larger. However, the fact that two-thirds of timely discussers at Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll wanted a policy directly contradicting T2 is evidence against the proposition that T2 is widely supported. Additionally, attempting to explicitly include T2 in T1 caused a great deal of debate as to whether that was policy and caused T1 in its entirety to be removed from WP:CSD or labeled as not-policy a couple times. GRBerry 14:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - template space isn't for unhelpful bias-promoting bumperstickers. T1,T2,T3.. whatever? whocares? This is an encyclopedia committed to neutrality, these don't help. --Doc ^ask? 13:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stop deleting userbox templates (and, indeed, creating new ones) until there is consensus on the whole userbox debate. Alternatively, delete all the political party templates simultaneously (I understand they're all listed in one place so this shouldn't be difficult) along with all the userbox templates espousing a religious, ethical or moral viewpoint. But really, continually deleting userbox templates and going through this tedious process with every one is getting nobody anywhere, slowly. Bastun 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD There is nothing asserted above to indicate that this template is so troublesome that it needs to be deleted prior to a normal review discussion. (And I can't see the template to check myself.) GRBerry 14:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Invalid deletion. Hong Qi Gong 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Perfectly valid deletion. This does not belong in template space. Rx StrangeLove 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted seems pretty clear to me. --pgk^(talk) 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep Deleted Political affiliation templates are inherently polemical and divisive. -- Drini 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

29 May 2006

Ali Zafar

This article was deleted twice as a copyvio of Zafar's official site, then once again as a one-line substub which did not assert notability, then a fourth version was deleted as a copyvio again. After that the earth was salted.

Zafar is clearly a notable singer, and so I've written an article from scratch at User:Samuel Blanning/WIP. I would like the community's approval to unprotect Ali Zafar and move the article there. The weird text at the bottom is neutered categories, and the image is nowiki-ed out as it is fair use and can't be used in userspace - those will obviously be fixed when I move it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, permission granted, etc. Whatever it is, excellent rewrite. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment can you just delete the protection tag and make the new article? It's a valid reason do to that. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/move userspace draft over JoshuaZ 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Pottery Barn Rule: No problem, of course, and maybe a little hypercorrective in asking, but, uh, if you fix it, will you own it? (I.e. will you keep it straight from the obviously dedicated fans who want to scribble on it?) Geogre 03:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I went ahead and moved it over, as the article in its current form has never been deleted so as far as I'm aware, all I really wanted was confirmation that I could take the protection off. To answer Geogre's question: yes. And even if I didn't intend to, I don't think it would be a reason not to recreate it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Me either. I just wanted to be sure. I don't argue that things should be deleted because they're vandalized, but I worry when we have a lower profile article that attracts vandals. (Those hundreds of high school articles that people fought viciously to allow are probably not on very many watchlists.) There are just some things where I sleep better at night knowing that they're being watchlisted. Geogre 11:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Scienter

Scienter was originally a dictionary term, and was deleted under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. However, while I realise that it was a dictionary article, I do believe that we can expand it and discuss good examples of its usage, such the scienter requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 1960. I would like it to be undeleted, its structure modified, and an {{expand}} tag added to it so we can discuss in more detail how the term applies to the law. Please also see answers.com for a few examples of how it could be done. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• ???? Comment I don't the word "scienter" or anything like it at 18 U.S.C. § 1960. Could you explain? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See Section 373 of the Patriot Act, it amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960 to provide a scienter requirement for Section 1960 violations. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Its former content was more-or-less verbatim that at wikt:scienter. It was speedied as an A5 transwikied, though, not A7, although it does not appear to actually have ever left Wikipedia. This is probably a good case for just diving in and writing a proper encyclopedia article and freely doing a history-only undel afterwards. However, it never having had an AfD, the second speedy was technically out of process, and there's a good-faith request for its resurrection, so I suppose there is no harm in granting it. -Splash^talk 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment OK, there are a scad of references to it in Google Books so it's clear that it's in reasonably widespread use, and if 6250 pages of 100 books mention it, I'm sure an article can be written about it. My next question is: why is it important to undelete the existing, poorly written dictdef? If Ta bu shi da yu is going to write a real article why can't he (or anyone else) go ahead and do so? The article was merely deleted, not protected against re-creation. Why is action being requested here? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Because if I recreated it, I'd probably get away with it, but if someone else recreated it they risk being seen as disruptive for readding a deleted article. I thought that DR was the best route. No controversy, but DR is the place I take such things. :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 22:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think that the request was to avoid any potential allegations of a wheel war. I've undeleted the article, as there are no objections, and I'll ask TBSDY to expand the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Will do so soon. Incidently, it wasn't about wheel warring, I'm just following policy and best practice. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

28 May 2006

Auto repair shop

This has apparantly been deleted two times already by User:UtherSRG, but shouldn't have been. It's a notable topic and should have an entry. A lot can be said about it. I've restored it and added the template. Hoof38 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Huh. Mark this down. Overturn and undelete previous version as stubbed. It's not a speedy, and it's not a valid G4 repost deletion because it never went through AfD.  RasputinAXP  c 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Rasputin. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Rasputin. --Metropolitan90 03:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• The complete contents of this page are "An auto repair shop is a place where automobiles are repaired and auto mechanics work." I have no objections if someone wants to write a real article here but the current contents do qualify under speedy-deletion case A3 (article consisting only of ... a rephrasing of the title). Rossami (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable context, but poor content. It'll get better. Mr Stephen 08:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami but without prejudice against an actual article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: It's a restatement of the title, and a violation of the deletion policy besides (dictionary definition) as well as a CSD as "empty." Geogre 12:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until someone writes an article beyond an A3, per Rossami. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this is a speedy as a simple restatement of the title, CSD A3! Evil that I am, I have correspondingly redeleted it. There is zero value in undeleting such an article or allowing its continued existence, but anyone who wants to can not spend their edits complaining here and instead write a useful, valid, encyclopedic stub. If noone can persuade themselves to use their edits in such a manner, then we can conclude that at the present time, there is no desire for the article. -Splash^talk 15:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added more to the article. Now it's not merely a restatement of the title. This articles should not be deleted until it's decided whether or not it should be undeleted or kept deleted. Hoof38 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Also Car repair shop by the same editor. · rodii · 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Got it. Note that the author of these 'articles' is an indef blocked, sockpuppeting vandal. -Splash^talk 16:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I assume you mean the author of the previous articles, as I've just recently created an account here, have not done any vandalism and haven't used any sockpuppets. Hoof38 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I do. More specifically, I mean their original author. I should have been clearer. I've moved the article to a proper title. -Splash^talk 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia v search engines

Wikipedia v search engines was deleted, no reasons stated and no discussion. Opt for reinstatement.--Shtove 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted per WP:SNOW (yes, I know, not policy, but nonetheless). The content in its entirety was "Wikipedia will supplant search engines in retrieving non-commercial information on the web." Not exactly a bastion of encyclopediac content.  RasputinAXP  c 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not that WP:SNOW is ever applicable, but doesn't this meet a speedy criteria anyway? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Borderline A3 because it's utterly lacking in content, but people dislike when I apply that too liberally.  RasputinAXP  c 03:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Borderline? I think that's so clearly lacking any content as to be laughable. Keep it deleted please. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A1 (insufficient context for expansion). The only possible expansion of this theory would have been as a speculative essay. It would be acceptable on the user's page and perhaps in the Wikipedia-space, but until somone else writes about it in a verifiable, reliable source, it does not belong in the article space. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, according to process, it is A1 (per Rossami). If I want to go beyond process (something pretty rare for me in a DRV discussion), it's also unencyclopedic, POV, crystal ballery, and self-referencing. I'd rather not have Wikipedia wrench its arm out of its socket trying to pat itself on the back, thank you very much. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, perfectly valid A1 speedy. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pat Price

AfD was closed by User:FireFox as a delete. When prompted for further explanation, said that vote counting wasn't taken into effect (although 6 delete/4 keep would normally constitute a "no consensus"), and that the most sensible close was actually delete, even though three of the delete voters noted that there were verifiability issues even though 25 published sources on remote viewing cited him by name, and one delete voter used WP:HOLE as a rationale. Overturn the delete and close as no consensus. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You're referring to the number of votes, even though (I assume you meant) the closer even told you that he'd closed the AfD the Right Way, that is to say, without taking the vote tally into account. It is entirely proper for FireFox to do so, and it makes you look silly to bring it up here, after all the advances you've been making. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just providing all the available information. Noting how many of the people felt delete was correct, and then demonstrating their incorrect rationales for the opinion seems perfectly legitimate in a DRV discussion. I haven't forgotten, don't worry. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No offense to Mark, but I must disagree. I think it's pretty obvious that this AFD didn't come to any sort of consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no need to worry about causing me offence here. I've already said I don't agree with the close. I just don't see what the tally has to do with it, and I don't like the attempts from certain users to spread the misconception that it matters. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. Google Scholar, minus the cancer stuff, turns up a fair number of references to Price. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Johnleemk. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. AfD failed, as did the administrator who deleted it anyway. Sarge Baldy 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• He just made a mistake in good faith. That's what DRV is for. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, looks like a fellow worth having an article about. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, looks like a classic no consensus, before and after the relisting. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others

Others include Abacus Group Literary Agency, Arthur Fleming Associates, Benedict Associates, Capital Literary Agency, Desert Rose Literary Agency, Finesse Literary Agency and Harris Literary Agency. The category Category:SFWA Writer Beware Worst Literary Agents was also speedy deleted along with these, but has since been undeleted.

These articles were speedy deleted as attack pages. I contend that they were not attack pages, primarily on the basis that the information contained in them was verifiable according to the rules at WP:Verifiable. I don't believe stating the verifiable truth is disparaging.

Yes, the majority of things they said about their subjects were negative. But if this were the only criteria for a page being an attack page, then we couldn't have pages like Harold Shipman or any other that deals with a subject for which the only things worth saying really are negative.

Admittedly, the Barbara Bauer article has had some things added to it that weren't sourced. However, the appropriate action would be to remove these comments and find sources for them before restoring them, or to add a {{disputed}} tag. Not to delete the article. JulesH 08:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just a correction: Category:SFWA Writer Beware Worst Literary Agents wasn' undeleted, it was re-created, by me. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - these agencies don't seem especially notable. Metamagician3000 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest that their inclusion on the list makes them notable. Barbara Bauer at least is notable, if only because of the numerous recent discussions concerning her. It may be best to merge the other articles together into one about the list, but that and the notability of the articles would surely be best dealt with via an AfD discussion after their reinstatement? JulesH 08:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a datum regarding notability; a google test for '"barbara bauer" agent' turnes up 279 unique results; a test for '"donald maass" agent' (one of the most noteworthy literary agents currently trading) turns up 622. JulesH 09:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Barbara Bauer, undecided (as yet) on the rest. The notion that the opinion of a professional organization (the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), the people who bring you the Nebula Award) regarding companies that deal with their peers, counts as "attack pages" stretches the meaning of the speedy-deletion criterion to its breaking point. By that logic -- that any such listing is a priori a speediable attack page -- means you best have a look at the listings at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, since it's a bunch of articles about companies (mostly not institutions, though some pretend to be) that are not what they appear and are listed on various official and unofficial watchlists. POV problems can be fixed: calling these articles speediable is an assertion that they never can be, and that's flatly wrong, especially with regard to the recent notoriety of Bauer. She's at least borderline notable, not speedy material. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - do you think perhaps it would be more appropriate to create a single page concerning the rest, rather than undeleting the individual pages I created? Then, as and when these agencies rise to further prominence, like Bauer's did, individual articles could be spun off from that page. JulesH 09:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• No vote on Barbara Bauer because it is already in AfD, Endorse deletion (or list on AfD) on the rest. These organisations seem like valid A6es (attack pages), these articles should be written to be more neutral in tone. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Brian Peppers

Extended, ongoing discussion was taking place at this talk page, regarding an article Jimbo had deleted and protected back in February. The discussion included a fairly considerable number of users and diversity of views, many strongly felt. User:Tony Sidaway, however, recently decided that the discussion should not be taking place and chose to delete and protect the talk page as well. I propose that this was wrong of him and the talk page should be restored. Everyking 07:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Jimbo asked us to give it a rest for a while, and I propose the deletion of the talk page as the only way to give us a proper chance of coming back to the issue with fresh eyes in a year or two's time. --Tony Sidaway 07:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony Sidaway 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Comment It seems that Geni has boldly restored this talk page.
    • 08:45, 28 May 2006 Geni restored "Talk:Brian Peppers" (restoing public record pluss index of archives)

  You want discussion to stop? Protect it. Myself I'd rather we had a place to keep track of any developments (such as say it.wikipedia).Geni 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - common sense in the circs. Metamagician3000 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Please provide evidence or a logical basis for your claim.Geni 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - After the years up, restart the conversation. No meaningful conversation was taking place. The purpose of the original article deletion was to spend time/resources on other things for the year. --Rob 08:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To me, all the conversation seemed meaningful. Everyking 09:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony. The whole point of giving the Peppers issue a year's rest was to allow us to come at it with fresh eyes next year. If we spend the intervening time sitting around the talkpage discussing what we're going to write when the suspension period ends, we may as well not have bothered placing that period there in the first place. Now, there are those who would very much like that to be the case — but they're out of luck. There will not be an article mocking Brian Peppers until the year is up, at which point we're supposed to be able to look at the need for it with a fresh perspective. We can't do that as long as people are discussing the potential article on its talkpage. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  No. According to jimbo the reason was recreation of previously deleted material or "We can live without this until 21 February 2007". Can't find where he talked about fresh eyes. Oh and If I'm around in a year there will not be an article "mocking Brian Peppers". There may be a NPOV sourced article covering the meme. we will have to see.Geni 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I don't see why the conversation wasn't meaningful. I also don't see how attempting to forbid discussion on the issue is supposed to help make a better encyclopedia. If you feel you need a "fresh look" at the article, for whatever reason, please feel free to not look at the Talk page until February. Enforcing a "fresh look" seems like a fairly futile and counterproductive thing to do. --Ashenai 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) --Ashenai 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Tony Sidaway did the right thing. I read some of that discussion, and not only did it seem to me not to be terribly productive, but it was also rather polarizing. Too many people seemed to be engaging in grandstanding and posturing. The cries of "censorship" were particularly unnattractive and extremist. All this over an article about a particularly ugly sex offender? Aren't there better things to do in Wikipedia? Erik the Rude 14:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  We've been through this (sometime during one of the more intense parts of the deletionist/inclusionist wars) we can't force people to do things on wikipedia.Geni 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  We're being told that our views, despite being made rationally and without any attempt to spill outside of the confines of that tall page, are not welcome. If a person can't make the connection here, then when? --Bobak 17:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, although I don't have any doubt that Tony was trying to do the right thing here. The most telling part for me is that Jimbo, who stepped in on the article, didn't do anything to the talk page. If it was meant to not be discussed, why wouldn't he have done so then? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (although seems to be restored). Tony is clearly one of the best admins here. However, I don't think it was necessary to remove this talk page nor do I see any policy basis for deletion. More discussion is good and should be encouraged. In any case, what's wrong with MFD?-- JJay 14:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like User:Geni restored it. It remains protected, though. Everyking 14:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Give it a rest means stop discussing it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  where did jimbo use the term "give it a rest"?Geni 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  I've just look at his deletion summary. The wording is: "We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it". I take this as meaning on 21 February, 2007 we can discuss whether to recreate. And a rather heavy hint that it won't be recreated. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Nothing saying we can't disscuss it now. Nothing saying give it a rest.Geni 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Give it a rest. Happy now?--Tony Sidaway 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Why?Geni 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build a free encyclopedia, not to adhere to some absolute view of purity-of-Wikihood. Let's not go off on some overdramatized "and when they came for Brian Peppers, I said nothing" tangent. Let's find some other trivia to fight about. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  So what is your actual argument for keeping it deleted? At present you appear to be attacking a strawman.Geni 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • First, your comment is accurate. Second, the reason for my vote, not constituting "an argument," is that my personal judgement is that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to keep it deleted, per WP:IAR. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If there is a problem here it is that the deletion was only carried out now. The talk pages of deleted articles are deleted—we have a speedy deletion criterion for it, G8, a perfectly legitimate policy. They are only left untouched in a small number of old cases, where AFD discussion took place on the article talk page (the former custom in Wikipedia was that AFDs were held on the nominated articles' talk pages; to maintain a record of these old deletion discussions which lack dedicated AFD subpages, the talk pages were not deleted along with the articles, as is the normal practice). The deletion discussions for the unfortunate Peppers page, however, are all perfectly amply recorded in the numerous AFD pages and the DRV logs. There is no good reason for the page to be restored. —Encephalon 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. How was the conversation not constructive? While there were certainly different positions, there was no loss of civility. People are noticing this odd year-long-deletion of Peppers' article, and it's not surprising that they want to discuss it --the ability to discuss it lets people know that they're not marginalized because they share a view that's not share by those in power (especially when it's certainly rationale, if not the right choice). The people advocating for its recreation (in the year) are not mere anons or low-watt editors. We're people who sincerely believe that there is an article that can be written (or moved to within another article) and that the arguments that are being tossed back at us (as clearly illustrated in the talk page) are dubious. I believe in the Wikipedia project, but not this: Obviously Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I at least thought the people were allowed to speak so long as they are not harming anything in the project. Where is the harm here? Is there a problem that some of us would like to dissent from this action? Does it embarrass you that there are others out there who are pointing to this oddly handled page to say "look, another fubar (1 out of over 1 million non-fubars, mind you)"? The person who added the speedy-delete tag was an ANON user [2]. I know that, by itself, that is not suspicious --but the fact that there has been a passionate argument on both sides makes me curious why, all of a sudden, a traceless anon decides to speedy delete the talk page and now we're here. This isn't what the project is about: odd antics to suppress those of us that want to better the project but find ourselves in the minority. We're following the rules, but now we're tolding that's not good enough. We're being told that our views are embarassing the rest of you and thus we should be quieted. We are being pushed beyond marginalization, we are being suppressed for advocating views that are not agreeing that whatever is done is the best way. I am not going to draw comparisons to any real world political situations, but the comparison just sits there ready to be made. Let's not push Wikipedia past that point, please? A lot of us believe in the project, but the way this talk page is being handled is just crushing. --Bobak 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  I didn't delete the talk page in response to a speedy tag. That had been removed by the time I got there. I deleted the talk page because discussion was still continuing three months after the article had been deleted with a suggestion that we give it a rest for twelve months. Moreover, anon IPs are permitted to add speedy tags. The tagging was quite in order. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Er... you deleted a talk page because there was discussion on it? I'm sorry, but I find this wildly inappropriate, especially considering that there was a discussion on the talk page itself about whether it should be deleted, and there was a strong majority in favour of keeping it. --Ashenai 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Was there some reason that this couldn't have gone through MfD first if it needed to be deleted? In fact, although I rarely disagree with Encephalon, we often leave the talk page in place when we protect a deleted page. There may not have been much meaningful discussion, but clearly there was discussion going on. If it was felt that that was harmful, blanking and protecting would have been a more conservative option. Failing that, again MfD. No reason for this. Restore except of course that is already is. - brenneman ^{L} 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Jimbo. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  "Recreation of previously deleted material" makes no sense at all in this case.Geni 17:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted so we can for pity's sake all forget about it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 18:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  I can't think of any logical biological mechanism by which deletion should aid forgetting. Take it off your watchlist.Geni 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  It isn't on my watchlist. However, it keeps on cropping up over and over again all around Wikipedia because for some unfathomable reason some Wikipedians won't let it go. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  It turns up from time to time in certian polical areas but it had been pretty quiet lately. Oh it might have been going to get a minor resurection over the it.wikipedia issue but deleting the talk page won't do anything about that.Geni 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Nasty stuff Fred Bauder 18:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  In what sense? can you justify your claim?Geni 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete and keep it that way, as much meaningful discussion was and should continue to take place there. "Per Jimbo" is a misnomer. Silensor 18:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There was an ongoing discussion on whether it should be deleted under G8, and so far there's a "keep" consensus. Will (^E_@) T 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. The ongoing discussion on the page is a sign that people rae not 'giving it a rest'. The Land 19:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Bloody hell, undelete. Undelete the article too. --SPUI (T - C) 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (or keep undeleted to be precise). Geni has a good point: Jimbo said nothing of discussing about the article. In fact, deleting the page will prevent any constructive discussion to emerge with the aim of creating a well sourced, NPOV article. And we better have a good idea for one when 21st of February 2007. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it Seem clear to me that he wants us to step away from the article for a while. That'll be hard to do with that edit button sitting there...Rx StrangeLove 20:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I find it very easy. Again would protection not have the same effect?Geni 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone has your self control...but the problem is that the more people that are interested in a talk page the higher the likelyhood of someone at some point editing the page. And the group that's interested in this talk page is quite large, there's almost zero chance that this page could go a year (or whatevers left of the year) without someone editing it. And once one person says something, someone else will respond and then it's off to the races. The only way to keep it from being edited is for it not to exist. The same for protection, there are some pretty itchy fingers out there, how long would it be before someone ran right through that stopsign or unprotected it all together, especially as the year started winding down. Rx StrangeLove 07:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest undelete possible Should have at least gone through MfD. Your "Interpretation" of Jimbo's actions doesn't make sense. If Jimbo wanted the talk page deleted he would have deleted it himself, no? VegaDark 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as the talk page of a non-existent article. Then ignore it until February; we spend far too much time on Wikipedia arguing about stupid things that don't matter, because so many of our editors take so much pride in being right all the time. Both sides should think about why you're arguing, and see if your time might not be better spent. (It is prideful of me even to vote on this, but at least I will go back to ignoring this subject after this one comment.) -- SCZenz 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted/redelete. I am always extremely suspicious of deletions under WP:IAR but this time it was an appropriate use. This entire debate about the article was inappropriate. Regardless of whatever wikilawyering you want to try to apply to Jimbo's words, the continuation of the article on the talk page clearly violated the spirit of Jimbo's request. He clearly wanted us to walk away from this whole dispute for a while. Kill it, protect it and leave it dead. Unprotect it in when the year runs out and start the discussion then. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  On what basis do you claim that this will prevent further debate? More likely t will result in debate in places where it is harder to ignore. In any case would just striaghtforward protection have the same effect?Geni 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. In view of the pretty strong endorsement for my deletion, I think it's inappopriate to leave the page in its undeleted state. I have accordingly deleted it again. Please be aware that I am under administrator "one revert rule"[3] and will not delete the page if it is restored again. --Tony Sidaway 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Talk:Brian Peppers#Deletion_of_this_page suggests there is no such consensus. I think we can wait for the weekday crowd before considering deletion. Or takeing this through MFD in the normal manner.Geni 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete deleting talk pages is pointless.  Grue  21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete now that it's deleted again, I can't even see what the previous discussion was. I say undelete because you are trying to interpret Jimbo's words and not just listen to what they said. Also, Tony, a strong endorsement does not indicate consensus. As I count it, including my support, there are 15 users (aside from yourself) who say delete and 12 who say keep. That is certainly not consensus, and after you saw the opposing argument for deletion here, it was inappropriate to not put this through MFD. Until this does go through MfD, please put the talk page back (maybe protected if you want), so that others can see the discussion there and consider that when deciding what should happen. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. You don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it. But we haven't appointed you arbiter of what other people can talk about. It's time Tony Sidaway stopped abusing his tool to impose his views of what is proper for this encyclopaedia on other editors. Grace Note 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (or keep undeleted) there was no need to remove these discussions. Yamaguchi先生 04:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (or delete and protect). An article -- if any -- isn't going to appear until 2007, so any talk page discussion before then is pointless wankery which violates the very notion of "starting fresh": "starting stale", would be a better description. --Calton | Talk 06:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I really argued for the keeping of Brian Peppers, but once Jimbo deleted it, he made it policy (and set a possible future date for re-creation). As such, the article was validly deleted. It also makes the talk page a valid CSD candidate as a G8 (talk pages for articles that do not exist). --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion If the point is to let it go for a year, it really doesn't help to maintain a Brian Peppers discussion board. Let's leave the guy alone for a while; there are so many other articles to think about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  Except those that are "inconvenient", apparently. --Bobak 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  What does that even mean? I'm saying let's let it go for a year, as was suggested. What are you talking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - discussion pages are only justifiable where they are about articles.Timothy Usher 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I normally would not be for deletion of a talk page. However, there were five pages of discussion here - for those doing the math, that's about two pages of discussion for every sentence that would actually go into the article if it were created. Numerous hot-button political issues and figures don't even have three-page talk sections on Wikipedia, which is a sign there's something wrong with this discussion. This is because neither side was trying to make headway in understanding the other, and it's pretty clear that the "keep" side was using the old Internet debate tactic of "Last Man Standing" (ignore, confound, and misrepresent your opponent until he quits in frustration, then declare victory). I'd have to say my favorite argument in the discussion was "Why do we have a page on Adolf Hitler but not Brian Peppers? I mean, all Adolf Hitler did was drop out of art school!"...and, sadly, I didn't take too much liberty with that. And then there's the inevitable army of YTMND kids posting "WTF NO BRIAN PEPPERS PAGE OMG FASCISTS" from, of course, unsigned IP addresses. I predict that, come February 2007, the page will be created, again, somebody will vandalize it, again, it will be reverted and huge arguments will show up on the talk page on why one of the article's three sentences shouldn't be there, again, it will be VfD'd, again, the losing side will whine and cry about not getting their way, again, and go to Wikitruth. I love Wikipedia and I think it's a great resource, but Brian Peppers bears witness to one of the reasons Wikipedia's detractors will always give for why an online, (mostly) freely-editable encyclopedia shouldn't work. Thunderbunny 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I do not see any harm in keeping it and I generally like to err on the side of keeping talk pages. Rjm656s 20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Let's give it a rest for awhile. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. While I am against the restoration of the article, (I've said many a time it should be redirected), I should mention that deleting this page comes into conflict with WP:NOT censored, WP:POINT, and WP:RD. WP:FREE does not apply to talk pages, and it is not policy or guideline. Although there was a lack of consensus to keep or delete the article, there is a clear consensus to keep the talk page. I really don't think it's appropriate for people to twist Jimbo's words to suit their own agendas. Must I remind people that WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and consensus and process are what run Wikipedia? Crazyswordsman 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. WP:CSD G8. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, then cauterize the wound with fire. Nandesuka 11:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

that is not a valid basis for deleteion.Geni 13:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

27 May 2006

The Juggernaut Bitch

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (again)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Juggernaut Bitch

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1532557/05252006/story.jhtml

Kept via AfD, nominated again two weeks later, deleted. Okay, fine. The problem, as it stands now? X-Men: The Last Stand, which came out in theaters on Friday and immediately made $45 million dollars, second only to Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. What happens in this movie? Why, Juggernaut actually makes mention of this meme, screaming "Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" not only is the meme referenced in a blockbuster movie, now, but Fox News saw it fit to note it as well, as evidenced by this video: [4]. Not that there was much in the way of serious question of its notability before, this pretty much cements it. If it's good enough for a popular action movie...

EDIT: I see it's been recreated, which could get dicey, but process is important in this case. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: As of Sunday afternoon, 28 May EST, MTV also noted the link between the meme and the movie [5] --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have any evidence -- other than a single line of dialogue -- that connects this to the X-Men movie? And the point of the box office totals is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I don't. What else do you possibly think it would be referencing? It's fairly self-evident. As for the point of the box office totals, it's to demonstrate that a LOT of people are seeing this movie. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What else do you possibly think it would be referencing? How about "nothing whatsoever"? Which was, you know, the entire point of the question. Which you have answered, in a way, so Keep deleted/Delete and protect against recreation. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • so the meme doesn't exist? The movie just happened to throw that line in there independent of anything else? You're joking, right? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? Why do fools fall in love? Who, who wrote the Book of Love? I'm sorry, isn't this the "empty rhetorical question" topic? Any time you want to actually offer actual evidence of your actual claim, that there's a verifiable connection between this so-called meme and its specific use in the movie, though, I'm all ears. Vigorous handwaving and empty sputtering? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, it wasn't an empty rhetorical question. If you can't see what's in front of you on this one, there's not much else I can say. The evidence is there if you want to look at it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
            • No, it's precisely an empty question, since it has no content, an intentional distraction from the fact you haven't provided a scintilla of a shred of a shadow of an iota of evidence connecting the so-called meme with its use in the movie. Last time I checked, Wikipedia was a fact-based encyclopedia: your faith-based editing runs afoul of basic Wikipedia principles. And it seems odd for you to be so hung-up on policy regarding the exact timing of AfDs and yet constantly ignoring the more fundamental WP:Cite and WP:Verify policies: is it that you find them inconvenient? --Calton | Talk 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Not at all. The verification is there, the third party verification is there. If the evidence isn't going to sway you, nothing will, and I can accept that, but you could certainly be nicer about it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                • If the evidence isn't going to sway you, nothing will The moment you provide a shred of it, it will. Hint: an MTV story that merely repeats the claim without backing means you've merely pushed your empty handwaving back a level. Do find concepts like "proof" and "evidence" to be too archaic and inconvenient for your ideal faith-based encyclopedia? --Calton | Talk 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
            • It's certainly not unthinkable that those two words should appear in that order without it being an intentional reference. I find it quite natural, when I've just used the word "Juggernaut", to follow it with "bitch", and I didn't know there was such a meme. Ever hear of parallel evolution, or like when Newton and Leibniz both invented calculus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Is it possible? Of course. Is it almost an absurd reach? I think so. To think one of the more notable memes didn't get put in the eyes and ears of the creators of the film is almost too much to think logically about. BTW, more news stories added to the top. It's like saying Buffy the Vampire Slayer referenced Trogdor the Burninator without ever seeing Strongbad. [6] --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Or, maybe, it's just a coincidental line of dialogue with no relevance to this at all. Fan1967 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• The facts as described sound too "current-event" flavored for me. It's wonderful that WP is able to be up-to-date in important matters, but on questions of borderline notability, "This got mentioned once on FOX News this week!" is not compelling evidence, to my mind. We should wait to see if a trend develops. It's fine for WP to catalog major internet memes, but I think it bad for encyclopedia integrity if WP begins to promote minor memes, giving undue attention. I'm worried this case is of the latter variety. It is too soon to assess well the term's notability increase, if any, from this single mention. Xoloz 02:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As well as the fact that the exact line, word-for-word, appeared in an X-men TV episode to begin with, long before The Juggernaut Bitch. Maybe they're just reusing the line because it's in character for the Juggernaut to say. Fan1967 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that this is continually characterized as a minor meme. It's not, and the idea that this is coincedental is really rather silly. I don't understand what more people are looking for at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But the article isn't about the meme. It's about a short film. Fan1967 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• The author even acknowledges the article was "gone" so he copied back the answers.com version. I don't think it's worth keeping anyway, but it's clearly recreated content.· rodii ·
  • Nonsense, the article is about the meme and the video, as any article should, as most articles on Internet phenomenon are 72.145.155.253 15:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What part of what I wrote is nonsense? If you really mean "I disagree", try saying it in a more civil way. Also try writing coherently. · rodii · 21:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• In my judgment, this is a substantially identical copy of the deleted content -- I have speedied via G4 and protected. Of course, as the nomination proceeds, this matter may evolve. Xoloz 03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Even on the small chance that the mention exists and isn't merely coincidental, that still wouldn't be enough. It's one line of dialogue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What, exactly, do you need? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actual proof or evidence might be a start, as opposed to "firm belief". --Calton | Talk 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"
• Undelete. per first AfD. Shaun Eccles-Smith 03:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC).
• Undelete per badlydrawnjeff and first AfD. StarNeptune
• Undelete, valid Internet phenomenon with a pretty clear reference in a massively successful movie. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And your evidence that the two things have the slightest connection is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per badlydrawnjeff and first AfD. Ash Lux 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - This is a particularly notable meme, I saw the movie and that came back to mind. Mineralè 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And the evidence for a connection between the two is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I saw the juggernaut bitch vid at a friends house, and we saw the movie together as well. That line is a clear connection between the two; I *highly* doubt the two were coincidental. Even the voice inflections in the movie are similar to that in the Juggernaut Bitch video. Undelete this article, and keep it. -Chewbacca 05:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And your evidence that the two things have the slightest connection is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think Fan-1967 hit the nail on the head; the movie has most likely re-used lines from previous TV shows (or the original comics) that are "catchphrases" for the characters. I don't think that really bolsters the notability of the meme (though it makes it a little funnier to watch the movie having seen the "Juggernaut Bitch" video). Though I acknowledge that it's a popular meme, I'm still not convinced it merits its own article. Maybe we get some expert advice from this guy? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen every part of X-Men television, but I highly, highly doubt that "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch" aired over a television station for a superhero cartoon. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen the movie yet, but does he actually say "bitch" in the movie? (In the Fox News clip, he simply says "Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut," so either he doesn't say "bitch" or Fox chopped it. I still find it highly unlikely that the quote was included in the movie as a nod to the meme. (Though such things do occasionally happen, such as with Snakes on a Plane. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete this was obviously important enough to be included in the movie, so why should there not be something on wikipedia, a juggernaut (hah) of information. Skhatri2005 08:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And your evidence that the two things have the slightest connection is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above.  Grue  08:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: How is your pet rock doing? How about your mood ring? Say "Where's the beef?" often? Wikipedia is not a web guide. It is not the Jargon File. It is not a news site. If the meme is going gangbusters, it doesn't need Wikipedia, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic in any sense. Geogre 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You do of course realize that pet rock, mood ring, and Where's the beef? all have articles on Wikipedia? --Ashenai 15:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. New information such as this can make the article even better. Thanks to nom for bringing this to our attention. -- JJay 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And what new information would that be? --Calton | Talk 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Glad to be of assistance. Start at the top and work your way down. Check the MTV link. Reread the long discussion involving yourself and the nom focused on this very issue. I hope this provides you with a scintilla of a shred of a shadow of an iota of a response to your vigorous handwaving empty sputtering question. --JJay 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. We discussed this less than a week ago. No substantive new information has been presented convincing me that the second AFD decision or the Deletion Review decision should be overturned. Rossami (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So a blockbuster film and news coverage don't constitute "substantive new information?" If I wasn't concerned w/that, I would have brought it back here again sooner. I only saw the clip last night, it's brand new. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This was not made into a "blockbuster film". It received a casual and ambiguously interpretable mention in such a film. Neither did this get any "news coverage" that I can find cited. MTV Movies is not what I consider "major media". (If there is some other coverage that I've overlooked it, please point it out to me.) Rossami (talk)
      • Whether or not you consider MTV Movies "major media" is irrelevant. A reliable source is a reliable source, and since this has been covered by a reliable source via WP:RS and WP:V, the article should be reinstated. StarNeptune 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I disagree with your conclusion. Not everything on TV is appropriate for the encyclopedia. We are not WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Here's a link to the complete video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/v/4TCFyiB8Vzo -- 72.145.155.253 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete in light of recent events. Silensor 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This was featured on MTV Movies: http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1532557/05252006/story.jhtml

A Bitchin' Shout-Out — In one scene, the unstoppable Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones) bashes through wall after wall, until a naive Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) slows him down by sinking him into the floor. The angry mutant declares, "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" and then continues on his quest, but the brief line sticks out glaringly in an otherwise vulgarity-free film. "When that line comes up, I'm probably going to start breakdancing, and Randy will scream out the phrase himself," 21-year-old college student Xavier Nazario said excitedly, thrilled over the prospect of watching Jones utter the line made popular by an Internet spoof Nazario released last February. Using an old "X-Men" cartoon, Nazario and pal Randy Hayes dubbed their voices in, giving birth to the now-famous catchphrase. Hayes, who voiced Juggernaut's ghetto persona in the top-rated YouTube.com clip, isn't quite so shocked that Ratner paid tribute to the clip. "Everybody loves the Juggernaut," he laughed.

...emphasis mine 72.145.155.253 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, nn meme/amateur film, proper AfD. Trying to overturn an AfD on the grounds that the first one was valid but the second one isn't is, um, invalid. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to overturn a deletion based on new information that has come about following the otherwise valid closure. At no time did i disparage the second AfD as invalid in this argument, although I am trying to get some sort of policy in place over at Wikipedia:Speedy keep to refrain from the constant AfDing of consensus keeps. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete despite the video sucking shit, due to new "notability". Maybe it should be merged with X-Men 3, but that's not for us to decide (bindingly) here. --SPUI (T - C) 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, as it was a valid AfD, but allow recreation after recent events showing how notable this meme really is. If you want to take this as an Undelete I don't have a problem with that, I just think we should respect valid AfD's. VegaDark 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep in mind that people did not 'respect' the first AfD -- and it survived the first. So people renominated it again. 70.197.45.213 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I feel an admin should have closed the second as a speedy keep with the last AfD having been only 2 weeks prior, nominating again so soon doesn't make much sense...I still feel the result of the second should be respected (although I would have voted keep), but certainly allow recreation now that he actually said it in the film. VegaDark 07:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Per 72.145.155.253 (talk · contribs)'s MTV link above, it seems as if perhaps Ratner did include the line as an homage. Given the popularity of the movie (and the silly video), I'm going to have to change my vote. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Producer of the video believes that the movie line was an homage to him. Not exactly an objective observer. Fan1967 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete for the usual reasons. Grace Note 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Some anon refactored this debate into "discussion" and "vote" sections. I have reverted because such things are an anathema in my mind. Kotepho 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted With the sources provided this seems like it could use a mention in the movie's article, but we are still a long way from sourcing the article from secondary sources and I do not believe that the encyclopedia derives enough benefit from this article to allow it to be sourced by the video itself. Kotepho 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete this appears to be notable now. Yamaguchi先生 04:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelte Mention on fox and mtv makes this notable. JoshuaZ 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete in light of greater notability. -- nae'blis _(talk) 08:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. An inside joke in a movie isn't justification for the creation of an entire article. WarpstarRider 09:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Per first AfD. Notable Internet meme, now even more notable thanks to X3. Bastun 11:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. For an additional, documented example of filmmakers reshooting a scene to include "fancruft" (the most ridiculous word on Wikipedia), please see Snakes on a Plane. This was meant for the fans of the parody, if you can't see it, then you're trying too hard to legitimize earlier actions. --Bobak 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• I can't believe people are actually arguing this shit. Undelete the damn thing. Cassandra Leo 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is an obvious reference to the fan movie and as someone else said, many other pop culture notorietys have Wiki entries.
• Admin Action - I've undeleted this for now as it seems to be more than a handful of undelete requests, it is currently under another AfD so please take discussion there -- Tawker 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  As I couldn't find the AFD Tawker is talking about, I've opened one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (3rd nomination). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  I spoke to tawker on irc, he simply got confused over the afd... the article can't be here and on afd at the same time Mineralè 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  I have closed the AfD. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Please keep discussing here, the article has been brought back only to facilitate discussion, if consensus here is reached to keep the article deleted, it will be deleted, otherwise it will be kept. But we are voting to bring back an article already restored? -- yep that's correct but the restoration is only temporary and only because there is preliminary consensus to bring it back. Think of it as a temporary injunction, the movie is hot off the theaters right now and people are interested in the subject matter. Mineralè 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Recall that the purpose of DRV is not ti "refight" the deletion, it's only for decide wether the AFD was valid or not. Those having concerns about the AFD being closed incorrectly can give arguments here. That's what DRV is about.' -- Drini 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

South Coast League

Why was this article South Coast League deleted. It seems that InShaneee has his or her own agenda and opinion when deleting articles instead of using objectivity. Please undelete this article as it is a future baseball league. Their website is [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnoxSGT (talk • contribs) moved from the Talk page

• Undelete, looks like a league similar to the Can-Am League, not sure why it was ever deleted in the first place. i've seen the article, it was a non-notable stub. A7 would apply, sadly, so Endorse. Sorry Inshanee. --21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted until the league exists, fields teams, has competitions, and attracts fans (particularly the latter). Wikipedia is explanatory, not advertising, and until there are fans, there is no one to explain to. Geogre 11:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The league exists and fields teams. The competition begins very shortly. Did you feel that World Baseball Classic was created prematurely in May of 2005? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that you ask, yes. Encyclopedias are not news sources. They are not speculative. Should there have been an article in someone's user space? Maybe. However, until the thing happens, there is no there there. There is nothing in existence. Again, though, the bottom line is the function of an encyclopedia: it is not to announce. It is to explain, to document history, to draw upon secondary sources only to create a tertiary and critical summary. Anything that hasn't played a game yet is out. Geogre 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • And if that can be done through an examination of a future event...? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh? There are secondary sources already discussing the history of the thing, the execution of the thing, and the effects of the thing? That is amazing. Encyclopedias don't announce things. Anyone who thinks that advertising on Wikipedia is a good idea is already failing at business, music, and art, and anyone who thinks that Wikipedia is the place to announce their new accomplishment or event is abusing us and achieving nothing. Let it have some effects to measure before we proclaim those effects sufficient for an encyclopedia. Geogre 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• It probably wasn't speedy-deletion material but it definitely should have been deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As Geogre says, we are a tertiary source. We are not WikiNews. We have no need to scoop anyone. We can (and per WP:V, must) wait. Keep deleted. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted For the record, I speedied this as a nn-group, no content, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --InShaneee 19:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So the challenge of the speedy is invalid? If I recreate it with sources and content and isn't a G1, it ceases being a problem? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It doesn't matter much to me if we keep the current version of the article or not, but certainly there's no reason it can't be recreated with sources, if there are sources. Just because something hasn't happen yet, it doesn't mean that saying it's planned is unverifiable. -- SCZenz 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If verification were the only concern, we'd not be an encyclopedia. We are supposed to serve the curious, not the organizer. When we have something that needs explanation, we can explain it, by reference. Until then, being true isn't all that's required. Geogre 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're saying that the article violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, then verifiability is the issue; that's why we don't have speculation about the future. If the group is non-notable, that is a different matter. -- SCZenz 07:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm saying that it does not make claims for notability because it can't because it doesn't exist. I.e. my objections over future articles are that we can't be sure that the thing will happen, that a meteor won't hit while they occur, that anyone will show up, that anyone will watch, etc. They violate all of the criteria. We can affirm that they're planned, but that's only part of one requirement, as an article needs to be verifiable and significant. Until it happens, we can only speculate that it will be significant, and that would include major events like the World Baseball Classic or the 2012 Summer Olympic Games -- it's virtually certain that they'll be significant, but it's not at all certain in what way they will achieve significance, and that's why we write exclusively after the fact. Geogre 12:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Other side of the pillow

Out of process delete by User:FireFox, who arbitrarily decided that an AfD up for less than a day and wrongly described as a G1 candidate (the article was not patent nonsense, yet was described as such by 7 of the 15 delete voters) repeatedly constituted consensus to ignore process. At the very least, the AfD should be allowed to run its course, allowing for an actual discussion about the policies governing such things to be completed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted AfD at time of closure was 16-to-1 to delete, with several of those calling for a speedy. Unlikely in the extreme that it would have resulted in a keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Relevance? The article did not meet a single speedy criteria, and there is nothing in policy allowing for a speedy close such as this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD. Article cited no sources at all. Reconsider if someone presents convincing citations from a reliable source showing that "it has become a popular catch phrase" as the article states. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that it was on AfD for less than a day, not much was given to allow for such sources to be found. Also, was not a valid AfD, as it was closed early and improperly. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would not have speedied it myself, nor closed the AfD early, but I think undeleting it merely so it can be deleted again in a couple of days would be unconscionable process wonkery (an ideology that has no place on this encyclopaedia). So, keep deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not endorse deletion, keep deleted anyway. No need to close this early, even less need to reopen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 05:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - early closure well within reasonable admin discretion. Metamagician3000 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • According to what? Serious question. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I read the entry, and it wasn't an encyclopedia article even by WP standards. There's no reason bickering over something of such questionable quality. Any mention of this catchphrase should be included in the article on the guy who uses it. Erik the Rude 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• It was clearly inappropriate to close this discussion early. Doing so has already wasted more time and effort than if we'd let the discussion run its course. However, it would also be pointless to reopen the discussion just to delete it in a few days. Censure FireFox for failing to follow the process but leave it deleted. Rossami (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - An admin using common sense to close a deletion, like OMG! I saw the AFD and the article when it was still running, and the article was not good or worthy of an encyclopedia. It seems to be taken from a Prince live track or something, so maybe redirect it to the album title or something. - Hahnchen 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per precendent of early closings when consensus is clear/article is hopeless. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Joel Leyden

I'm a relatively uninvolved party, and it seems that the article was deleted out of process with the community having voted in favor of keeping it a few months before. It was written by the subject of the article, and so probably violates Wikipedia:Original Research and Wikipedia:Autobiography, but if it's recreated and relisted for deletion, this can probably be fixed by taking out most of it and reconfirming everything from the bottom up. I've compiled an article from what information can be found outside his website, excepting the information that he is the author of Israel News Agency, which I can't find at any website outside his own other than the Embassy of Israel in San Francisco, which regularly references his work. Daniel Bush 21:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Joel Leyden is an Israeli public relations consultant and the publisher of the Israel News Agency, which purports to be the first online news publication in Israel. According to CNN, he has once worked as a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces with the rank of captain. According to The Jurusalem Post, he is also a specialist in communications based in Ra'anana."Anglos on-line". The Jerusalem Post. April 20, 2006.</ref>

• Overturn with no objection to a relisting, although it shouldn't be necessary. Keep AfD is here, and the deletion seems to be completely out of process, especially given the concensus keep by the community at large. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (see a related review) I'll basically steal my comment from Danny's talk page. Is the Israel News Agency more than a blog? Is he a search engine spammer? I do not know, but it certainly does not seem fit to say that it is his only claim to fame.
  • Joel Leyden was behind netking.com Rovner, Sandy (1995-11-09). "Mourning by Modem for Rabin". The Washington Post. which has 16 mentions in newspapers including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The San Francisco Chronicle
  • Taylor, Catherine (2002-04-23). "Palestinian schools hit hard by conflict - Older students in the West Bank headed back to school yesterday, to begin cleaning up battle damage". Christian Science Monitor. quotes him as a Captain and spokesman for the Israeli Defense Force
  • Rover, Sandy (1996-03-07). "A Flash of Screwy Logic". The Washington Post. mentions his "internet consulting and advertising company" opening the Israeli Terror Victims Hotline page, http://shani.net/terror, which also has mentions in The Chicago Sun-Times and The Star Tribune
  • Again quoted as a spokesman and captain for the IDF in Chivers, C.J. (2002-04-27). "Mideast Turmoil: Bethlehem - Israel's Threat of an Attack on a Church is Pulled Back". The New York Times.; Lev, Michael (2002-04-27). "Israelis hunt militants in new West Bank raid - Bush urges end to incursions". Chicago Tribune.; "Children to be released from Church of the Nativity". CNN. 2002-04-24.
  • An article from The Register that mentions him and uses Israeli News Agency as a source

Kotepho 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• It was deleted by user:Danny as a "vanity page posted by banned user". The primary contributor, user:Israelbeach, has indeed been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. That decision was endorsed by two other admins who found it necessary to protect the page from recreation. The speedy-deletion criterion would certainly seem to apply and, if upheld, supercedes the AFD discussion.
  Personally, I am going to endorse the deletion regardless of the concerns about the banned user. I see nothing in any version of the article suggesting that this person meets our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Rossami (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The CSD applies to pages created by a banned user while they are banned. Since Israelbeach is not a sockpuppet of some other banned user, they could not have made the page and have been banned at the same time. Kotepho 17:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I suggest that if the subject is determined to be notable, a new article be started rather than continuing with the self-promotion of the deleted article. I suspect it would get filled up again by Joel's cadre of meat- and sockpuppets, but I guess that's always the chance we take when we have an article on a self-promoter. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete per the useful comments made by Kotepho. Silensor 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Articles should not be deleted as an extension of a wikisquabble. It's curious that supporters of Mr Leyden are considered "meatpuppets" but supporters of the other party involved are not. Grace Note 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

sharting

Google gets over 30,000 results for sharting. It's a notable concept and should not have been deleted. It should be undeleted. 24.127.224.173 18:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• The AfD resulted in delete. Was there something wrong with the procedure for AfD? Deletion review isn't just AfD2:The Sequel. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an undeletion request. Did I send it to the wrong place? Is there a different place for undeletion requests? 24.127.224.173 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Was there a problem with the AfD? Is there evidence that was not considered? Were there improprieties in how it was conducted? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, it was closed early and improperly. Undelete and relist. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it sorta is. DRV exists to determine if a problem was made in deleting an article, not merely to determine if process was followed. Process can be followed and still give us the wrong result; in such cases, it would be idiocy in its purest form to say "keep this good article deleted, process was followed". Fortunately, the article in question this time 'round is not a good article, but is instead an excellent example of when out-of-process deletion is a Good Thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I sure hope DRV is AFD: The Sequel, because if AFD goes in favor of keeping you can relist as many times as you like to get it deleted. If it goes in favor of delete, you're saying that it can't be relisted ever if process was followed, which results in an unreasonable ratchet effect. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Shart has been deleted 9 times already; the afd closed early because it was a speedy-able as a repost. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Without knowing the rationale for the deletion in the first place, it's impossible to derive whether the speedy was proper, for one. For another, it's noted in the AfD that the article in the form referred to was vastly different than the one speedied the first times, thus NOT making it a G4 candidate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. More User:Science3456 disruption. Don't waste your time with this badlydrawnjeff. —Ruud 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It may, in fact, be so, but this appears to also be an out of process delete, and that's just as much a problem as any sort of disruption a user may be causing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • R.Koot has made a mistake, as my IP address is not a sockpuppet of User:Science3456. I've left a note on the user page. MSN360 22:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This article is a textbook case of the sort of thing we do not want on Wikipedia. I can only assume that, with the exception of our earnest but misguided friend with the naked IP address, the people arguing for undeletion have not actually seen the article. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of this piece of ... stuff. Metamagician3000 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and, once past the giggle stage, what is there to do? Geogre 11:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but not the reason given. This "article" had no redeeming value to the encyclopedia. It was first speedy-deleted as a "vandalism" contribution. That was arguable but would have been my opinion as well. It was re-deleted as "reposted content". That speedy-deletion was in error. The repost criterion may not be used when the only prior deletions have been speedy-deletions. It can be speedied again under the original criterion but the repost criterion only applies to AFD'd content. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article was a dicdef of a neologism; it belonged on Wiktionary if it belonged anywhere. --Metropolitan90 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:user green energy

An opinionated deletion of an informative and inoffensive userbox. This must have annoyed other contributors as well as myself. I suggest this be undeleted and User:MarkGallagher be informed how to not alienate contributors. Elroch 11:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am thrilled at the prospect of my upcoming re-education procedure. I assume the Secret of How Not to Alienate Contributors is not an easy one to discover, or I'd have found it already. Is it some kind of icky-tasting elixir? An intense weekend-long training course complete with electroshock therapy and vicious sack-beatings? I must say I am all a-quiver, wondering what is going to happen. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete: I couldn't see a debate here, so I'm assuming there wasn't one. Userboxes say a lot about the editors who use them. This is no exception. I am aware there is a debate in this area, but this looks like a non-offensive user-box. Stephen B Streater 11:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  No vote: I don't seem to understand enough about this yet to vote, so I'm going to observe a bit longer. Stephen B Streater 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete: I don't currently see much difference between a graphic and a piece of text in user space. I think opinions should be separated from expertise, but this is a bigger debate. Stephen B Streater 09:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Ahhhh... I look forward to the explanation on why this was "T1" as the delete log says. Also, I see he has deleted the communist wikipedian category as well as another religion, and yet the cristian category is as vibrant as ever :).... hmmmmmmm..... RN 12:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  Believe it or not, green energy isn't a slam-dunk-everybody-loves-it cause, even in today's world when nearly everyone accepts the reality of global warming and suchlike. I s'pose if it was, nobody would have bothered making a userbox advocating it. It was a template advocating a potentially inflammatory viewpoint, and in my view fit snugly into T1. If users want userboxen that are useful to the project, there's no reason they can't create neutrally-worded ones: "This user is interested in green energy issues", "This user edits articles related to green energy", "This user is an expert on green energy", whatever.

  I haven't seen the template, so can't comment on the wording. Stephen B Streater 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  T1, as I read it, requires a userbox to be divisive & inflammatory to meet that criterion for deletion. Try as I might, I can't see a lot of weight going toward the idea that this is a divisive & inflammatory template. "This user supports green energy" is a statement that would be hard-pressed to inflame the passions of all but a small minority of people, and who would it divide? "Green energy" is a concept that's wide open to interpretation. I just don't see a strong case for deletion, and especially not for speedy deletion.--Ssbohio 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the position is; userboxes that express support for a political/social/religous position are divisive and thus can be deleted, as far as I, and many others, are concerned.--Sean Black 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Re: the Communist Wikipedian category, yes, I deleted it. I deleted the Socialist one, too. Categories that exist only for vote-stacking should not be used on Wikipedia. I don't remember deleting any religion-related userboxen or categories, and I wouldn't mind a little clarification about what exactly you were implying when you said I hadn't deleted the Christian category. If you want it gone, you're an admin, feel free: I have no objection. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopaedia, and is no more a vehicle for promoting environmental activism than it is for promoting religions or political philosophies. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  So are you in favour of deleting all user boxes? How about promoting white middle class Englishness, for example? Stephen B Streater 12:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  That's not a template. (For the benefit of other users, he's referring to the 'Personal' box on my userpage.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  My mistake then. I seem to have misunderstood what and template:userbox green energy and userboxes 'Personal' boxes are. As I can't see the deleted template either, I'll withdraw my vote until I understand this area better. Stephen B Streater 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is a pretty straightforward "T1" deletion of a userbox with a clear polemical purpose. A laudable purpose, I'm sure many will agree, but not a suitable use of template space. If I want the world to know that I support green alternatives to conventional fossil fuels, I'll write something to that end on my Wikipedia userpage, or perhaps on my blog. --Tony Sidaway 12:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Or you could add a neutrally worded user box to your user page. Is there a server resource issue here? At least you are consistent. And given your lightbulb is off, perhaps you are even secretly a sympathetic conservationalist ;-) Stephen B Streater 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Try Xanga or livejournal. --Improv 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, go somewhere else per Improv. --Cyde↔Weys 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted good thing to be in support of, but be in support of it somewhere else. -M^ask 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If we keep this while deleting other belief boxes, we're making Wikipedia take a position as to which opinions are inflammatory and which are kosher. That's way beyond what an encyclopedia needs to be doing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The converse is also supported by your argument. If other userboxes stay, then so should this one. Personally, I'd like to see all userbox creations & deletions stop, except for deletions due to incontrovertible issues, like copyright violations.--Ssbohio 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, Ssbohio, the converse also works, except that means we keep "user Nazi", so I'm willing to dismiss that option out of hand. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete In this discussion, there are several comments favoring keeping this template deleted. Many of them are informative & interesting. However, I have yet to see one directly address itself to how this template is divisive and inflammatory, per T1. It seems like that would be the central issue in this discussion. I can't see support for green energy to be sufficiently divisive and inflammatory to merit the ultimate sanction, deletion. If there is a legitimate T1 problem, then changing the text of the box would be, to me, a more appropriate solution. However, I don't see this template as having remotely met T1. Lastly, there's a strong argument to be made whether the same CSD should apply to templates used only in userspace. The fact that they exist in omnispace is an artrifact of how the wiki software was constructed. It bears no direct relationship on where the template is seen, nor on its content.--Ssbohio 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  So, you're willing for Wikipedia to decide which particular issues are inflammatory and which ones aren't? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  I am alarmed at the apparent level of intolerance in the Wikipedia community, and also misunderstanding: the userbox in question expressed a positive attitude towards green energy. This is not in any way "polemical", and not a "potentially inflammatory viewpoint" (as a user who prefered to withhold his name stated above), at least not to anyone without a pathological and irrational dislike of green energy - how can someone else's preference for a a certain type of energy source be "inflammatory"? I'm glad to see the only user who referred to the content of T1 pointed out how utterly inappropriate the use of this to justify deletion was. Elroch 02:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  So what if the attitude was "positive"? It has no place on Wikipedia; it serves no purpose in building an encyclopedia and, indeed, actively combats that goal.--Sean Black 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  How could anyone who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being "pathological and irrational" be considered polemical or inflammatory? See, the difference between the good userboxes and the bad userboxes is that the good userboxes are right. Keep deleted. · rodii · 03:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Fuddlemark and others, above.--Sean Black 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete improper deletion. Not T1 by any stretch of the imagination. Put the crack pipe down and stop deleting userboxes. Thanks. --70.213.250.24 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is exactly the sort of stuff we are currently trying to keep out of template space (pssssst, T2). Metamagician3000 08:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and reword so it is not divisive.  Grue  08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  I wouldn't oppose a template declaring expertise in green energy. That'd be downright encyclopedic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Me neither. That's not a reason for undeletion, however; a new template can simply be created at the old name. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted It's becoming clearer and clearer that these things don't belong...this was a proper deletion. Rx StrangeLove 15:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as I fail to see how it met a T1 deletion. If it had been nominated on TfD, perhaps it would have been kept or maybe it would have been subst and deleted, but I don't see how having a userbox saying This user supports green energy is divisive or inflammatory. It isn't like it's saying This user dislikes people who don't use green energy, it is merely highlighting the fact that the user supports the idea of green energy. If the subject itself was divisive, then people would boycott shops because the shop uses green energy. This userbox doesn't say this user supports greenpeace - a subject which could be divisive. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete, unless every single userbox stating a political, ethical, moral or religious viewpoint is also deleted. And I understand Jimbo's position is to win people over 'one user at a time', not to merely delete the userboxes. Bastun 11:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  That's what Jimbo said 3 months ago, right. You know what he said two days ago? What part of "the template namespace is not for that" don't you understand? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, hopefully to be followed by deletion of all other non-encyclopedic userboxes.Timothy Usher 16:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as done out of process and not likely to have been the result if process was followed. Between a user who stated that they couldn't find a deletion discussion at TfD and the failure of all prior posters to reference one, it is safe to conclude that this was done as a speedy delete. The above discussion shows no evidence that it met either prong of the T1 test, much less both - therefore it was a violation of process. Userbox templates that are actually used often do not get deleted during a TfD discussion, therefore the argument that the shortcut for a TfD discussion is false. (Those that do are the least used and/or the most contentious - this falls into neither group.) We may someday see Jimbo's preference for not having userbox templates come to pass, but the community as a whole is leaning the other way at the present time and Jimbo has explicitly said that he has not made policy by fiat on this topic, so the potential argument that this will eventually become policy is unproven and does not sustain this out of process action. GRBerry 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  T1 isn't a pronged test. Divisive userboxes don't belong on Wikipedia. Inflammatory userboxes don't belong on Wikipedia. They're gone. Finito. Speedied. That's what T1 is about. --04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep delted - template space isn't for biased bumper-stickers. --Doc ^ask? 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Invalid deletion. Hong Qi Gong 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

26 May 2006

Left-wing terrorism

• UnDelete. There was no concensous to delete this article. Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism). For the content of article to be merged with Political terrorism it will need to be undeleted. Also there may have been some vote gathering see [8], [9], [10] and [11]. --JK the unwise 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close and Keep Deleted. If my counting isn't totally screwed up, I count 15 deletes, 5 merges, 2 keeps, and 1 keep or merge. I don't see any logic that can justify "Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted." Also, quite frankly, all the NPOV content is already at Political terrorism. - Fan1967 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question: The consensus to delete was clear and I can not disagree with some of the core concerns raised during the AFD discussion. However, I note that this article's earliest version pre-dates the Political terrorism article. Was content merged before or during the discussion? If so, we would seem to be obligated to either restore and redirect or to execute a history-only merger in order to preserve the attribution history - a requirement of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, by my own analysis, the AfD doesn't quite have enough consensus for the article to be deleted. I would have closed this as no consensus and applied the default action of merging with Political terrorism as mentioned by the DRV nominator. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment I'm curious what you mean by merge. From what I remember, the content worth keeping from Left-wing Terrorism is already in the other article. Fan1967 20:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What I meant by merge is that I don't know if the information was already merged. :-) If the content is already merged, then a redirect is in order. In fact, if the content was actually merged FROM this article, then an undelete and redirect is required by GFDL unless an admin cares to perform a history merge (which is more difficult). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect it would take a pretty detailed historical comparision to figure out what appeared where first, and whether any was actually copied. I don't have access to the deleted article, but my impression ws that most of the information was substantively the same, but not word-for-word as if it had been copied. Fan1967 20:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Relist on AfD, and see if we can get a proper discussion going, instead of a silly poll full of silly little icons. I'm rather more supportive of AfD than most users, but a vote, using icons, is indefensible. Bah. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 22:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That set of icons lasted through about one day of AfD's, and I agree they're silly, but I don't see how they're relevant to the validity of the discussion. Fan1967 13:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undeleted and relist. Closing seems premature. Cynical 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - decision within reasonable admin discretion and article itself superfluous. Metamagician3000 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, and then re-list on AFD for consensus. Silensor 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question. There was a companion article to this, on Right-wing terrorism (AfD here), similarly deleted for pretty much the same reasons. Why is only one of them being targeted here? Fan1967 19:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Answer: because noone has bothered to bring it up for DRV. If you decide to bring it up, I'd be happy to look at the AfD and offer my opinion on it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Oh, no. I don't want that one DRV'ed any more than this one. I just find it interesting that only one of them was brought here. Fan1967 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Stella Maris College Scout Group

• UnDelete - this article was still a stub. However, it was deleted. Wikipedia does not have information about scout groups in Malta. The page The_Scout_Association_of_Malta is the only Maltese scouting page. Wikipedia needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc. The Stella Maris College Scout Group is an active group, which deserves to be listed. It has carried out a number of joint activities with different scout groups around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk • contribs)
• The entire content of the article was

  "Stella Maris College Scout Group is part of The Scout Association of Malta"

  and an externel link. - I'd just recreate it with something more substantail. RN 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, discourage recreation. Individual Scout groups are not notable. "Wikipedia needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc" - no, the organisation's website needs that, this is an encyclopaedia and not a vehicle for promoting Scout groups. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this looks to be a valid A7 (non-notable group). --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• I pulled the trigger on it, so, in a sense, I've already "voted," and therefore all I can do is elaborate on the rationale. I'm sure it's a fine troop and important in its way. However, it is not a thing that is mentioned in multiple contexts, documented in several sources, beyond the local area. Therefore, there isn't a need for contextualizing and explaining the thing. There would be nothing wrong with putting the information in the extant articles on scouting, or, if appropriate, the cultural life and schools section of Malta, but, as a stand-alone entry, there just isn't an encyclopedic need at this time. Geogre 20:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, concur with Samuel's reason. --Improv 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

25 May 2006

List of Michael Savage neologisms

The AfD discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Michael Savage neologisms (second nomination).

• UnDelete - list :[12]offers insight into controversial cultural icon, unique extensive jargon reference

Its never been deleted... RN 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It has, he just linked to the wrong article in the heading. I've fixed it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. AfD was closed quite properly, and a look at the article shows nothing that would be missed from Wikipedia. If you'd like to take the content and host it on your own website, I'd be happy to provide it to you. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• endorse closure - keep deleted. This was a valid afd with a 100% consensus that there shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia (there were votes to transwiki to Wikiquote, 10 votes to delete and one unsigned comment by an anon that didn't express an opinion about the article). Thryduulf 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but not the actual AfD result. Valid AfD here, but I wouldn't have put "no consensus, leaning towards delete" as the result in the AfD. After discounting the invalid votes, this was definitely a consensus towards delete. A "no consensus" means that the article is kept, not deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC), valid AfD (changed my comments now that RasputinAXP provided a link to the most recent AfD). --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• AfD isn't a vote ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, as an AfD closer, I'm aware of that. As I've noted somewhere else, while AfD isn't a vote, and each entry in an AfD is a comment, I choose to name any comment which calls for an action (such as comments that start with Keep, Merge, Redirect, or Delete) a "Vote" for convenience and to differentiate it from an actual comment which doesn't call for an action (such as comments that have no heading, or start with Comment). If you would prefer that I use a different noun, I can call it an iVote, nVote, !Vote, notVote, or something like that. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted: List of neologisms from a single person? That's a tribute page, a fan page, or an attack page, and it's not an encyclopedia article. Geogre 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: as the closer of the most recent AfD on this article, it was a pretty clear Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I changed my comments to reflect that. I had to look for the AfD manually, but didn't think to look for the second nom. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted The closure and deletion was proper, and valid reasons for deletion were expressed in the first and second AfDs and here above, while no reasons expressed for keeping it had any weight to them. (Even if the article were deemed to be proper for WP, it had many problems I had identified in the 1st AfD the maintainers of the page were apparently unwilling to address.) Шизомби 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• transwiki to Wikiquote list qualifies as a unique citation of quotes
• Comment First Deletion Request Discussion Page has further objections as to encyclopedic relevance and other objections--Lr99 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (as delete) The AfD was altogether proper, and there was a clear consensus for delete (for our purposes, transwiki can be understood as supporting delete [since those supporting transwikification acknowledge that the information is not appropriate for Wikipedia]). Nothing is adduced here toward the proposition that new evidence exists such that those supporting delete would think the article ought to be kept, and, inasmuch as the general AfD objections (mine, at least, in which others joined) were as to the page's being an indiscriminate collection of information and in any event largely unverifiable, no such evidence could be introduced. I can't think of any valid challenge one could essay to the AfD or to this article's deletion. If one wants to transwiki (I'm not certain that Wikiquote would want the page, but I'm not wholly familiar with their inclusion guidelines), I think the text of original should surely be copied to a user subpage, with the proviso that the text shouldn't stay there forever; we'd then simply be hosting a deleted article in userspace. Joe 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Transwiki to wikiquote as well, perhaps, but definitely delete. --Improv 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer

Discussion closed, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer.

Superhorse

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhorse

I would respectfully request that another look be taken at this article. I have added more supporting evidence since the AFD started and I am not sure whether or not it was taken into consideration. This is my first article and I think that a little construtive criticism wouldn't hurt and would help me right write articles in the future.

Quite frankly my first experience was a bit nerve wrecking and I feel that I have learned little and am unsure if I am capable of at least starting an article that would be acceptable to Wikipedia' standards. Thanks for all your help and I look forward to a fair and ubiased discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanax (talk • contribs)

• Comment FWIW, the deleted article can be viewed at a Google cache. Fan1967 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As the closing admin, I'd like to say that I would have liked to be informed about this DRV (please take a look at {{DRVNote}}). Now, to the AfD itself. First of all, it wasn't easy, sifting through the extremely long comments by all the new users (likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets). Next, after discounting those invalid votes, on a strict vote count, I counted four deletes and one keep, with the one keep being by the original author. The delete votes took into account the evidence you were presenting, and they still decided that the subject wasn't notable enough to be included. If this article is kept deleted, it's okay, it's not easy sometimes figuring out what's notable and what's not. It might be easiest for you to find a small music-related articles and expand those instead. Wikipedia could use some expansion of articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Once the band has more coverage will they be reconsidered for inclusion on Wikipedia or is this a life time delete? user = meanax
  • No, it's not a lifetime delete. Bands that become notable (per Wikipedia:Notability (music), usually by being signed to a major label and/or releasing a notable album) can and do get undeleted and mentioned on Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment And one shouldn't be discouraged when the subject of an article he/she wrote is deemed non-notable, even if he/she is closely linked with the subject. After all, were Wikipedia around in 1958, we'd like have adjudged as non-notable (in view of our not being a crystal ball) The Quarrymen, but we'd surely have included them upon their becoming The Beatles and having some commerical success. Joe 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Dear Deathphoenix, I just want to clarify that all the long comment on that AFD were mine. Two of the keep voters I new. I third one I had no idea who or she was. I want to make clear that I was not trying to circumvent the system. I promise. user = meanax
  • No problem. I closed the AfD without malice and in as fair a way as possible. Oh, and note my additions to the response above. --Deathphoenix ʕ
• No opinion to the deleted article, but there could be a good article under this name, I think. Isn't superhorse a breeding/racing term applied to specific horses like Secretariat which perform a standard deviation or two above literally any of their peers? I will look into it more and write a draft when I have time and am on my normal computer. --W.marsh 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentIndeed; when first I saw this listing, I assumed it to be an article apropos of the equine appellative (recently ascribed to Barbaro [pre-injury]). Joe 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• I've removed the {{deletedpage}} now that the user is involved in DrV. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Legit afd (whose concerns focused on verifiability); too local (no mention in Allmusic.com, no titles for sale at Amazon). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Alright. Not wanting to beat this "Superhorse" to death (Just a joke fellas), Keith Kozel, the singer is on IMDB, Allmusic with his other project (GAM is the name of his other band), was awarded best band of GA (While performing with GAM) by a popular poll conducted by Creative Loafing (Currently called Access Savannah and with circulation of 40,000 weekly copies) and has had his paintings published on The Church of the Subgenius. Between Superhorse, GAM, his paintings being published, and his acting endeavors Keith Kozel has been mentioned in over 70 articles from Atlanta to Savannah, GA to Charleston SC. Provided you accept his accomplishments as "notable" would you: 1. Reconsider the article. 2. Let me do an article on GAM. 3.Let me do an Article on Keith Kozel and have a stub for Superhorse since he is the founder, composer and lyricist of the band? C'mon! Help me out fellas. I'm doing it all in the name of rock'n roll and rooting for the home team.User = meanax

I don't see an entry for Keith Kozel on AllMusic, though I did see one album listed for Gam. He has two movies listed in IMDB (both of which appear to be limited release) and 1,340 Google hits. I'd say that's borderline notability at best. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Sorry. The mention on Allmusic is for GAM, which Keith is also the founder, composer and lyricist. Does that count? Meanax 21:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt

Exicornt is a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use to describe a train track junction that resembles the formation of the letter X. Six months ago, I created an article on this term. However, it ended up getting deleted and renamed to crossover (rail). Several attempts have been made by other editors (not me) to include this word on the article.

I understand that some editors object to having to word mentioned on Wikipedia. However, I would like to dispel one user's statement that mentioning exicornt on the article is considered vandalism. Therefore, I am writing to request that Exicornt (which is now a Junk Page) [protected against re-creation (a more accurate term)]) be deleted and redirected to crossover (rail)

I am requesting this because I noticed a recent edit war on the crossover (rail) page itself. I fear some editors might accusing me of being a so-called "sockpuppet" as a result.

Though I am prepared to take any criticism, I feel posting the word here for review is a proper course of action to take in light of the recent controversy. Edit warring isn't the answer to solving this problem. -- Eddie, Thursday May 25 2006 at 14:01 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The AFD was completely legit, apart from Eddie's attempts to make it go away. Edit warring doesn't change the reasons why "exicornt" was deleted. No need to create a redirect that would legitimate this word that is used only by a small (perhaps very small) local group. FreplySpang 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. I don't see that anything has changed since the AfD result, which was exactly correct. Google still shows no uses of this that aren't Wikipedia or Wiktionary-related. · rodii · 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

keep deleted I am a railfan, I've been a model railroader since the early 1980s, I helped build the Wisconsin Central project layout for Model Railroader Magazine (article series published in 1997), I'm the lead editor on Portal:Trains and I'm model contest co-chairman and a Director-At-Large for the Midwest Region of the National Model Railroad Association. I hadn't heard of this term before it popped up last November; I've only heard that track configuration referred to as a crossover. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted/NO redirect. Eddie, "exicornt" isn't "a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use", it's a term you made up yourself. This explains the recent edit warring over blanking its AFD -- it's either a crude attempt to hide the background (with its rampant sockpuppetry and vigorously unverified claims) and/or do some SEO cleansing. (I recommend reading the AfD discussion. It is...enlightening.

And by the way, the only reason I stumbled over the recent AfD edit warring was following the shenanigans of some sockpuppetry over the AFD of a made-up New Jersey baseball team, and those sockpuppets seemed interested in the old AFD. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Obviously. But let me note that unless if anyone has good evidence the the contrary, it may be reasonable to imagine that the recent rash of vandalism is by an impersonator, not Eddie himself. I certainly don't have a way to tell. However, the fact that Eddie still doesn't "get it" about "Exicornt" and has used this opportunity to open this silly DRV doesn't seem very reassuring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't find it reasonable, given his history of rampant sockpuppetry and unceasing attempts to get attention for his made-up word.

And speaking of possible sockpuppetry, I notice that a week ago that someone named Dnd293 (talk · contribs) created redirects to Crossover (rail) at Exicornts and Exicornt. -- which were the user's only edits. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. And of course there's a good chance you're right. But Eddie edited in seeming good faith for a good number of months after he ceased the suckpuppetry and exicornting, so maybe I'm AGFing a little hard here in a spirit of optimism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I remember the MfD for Eddie's userpage version of exicornt, where his submitted "source" was a hand-drawn, sloppy diagram of same. I don't see any new sources that would lead to a reevalution here. Xoloz 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per everyone above. 'Nuff said. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no compelling reason to overturn previous AFD, nor any new evidence to invalidate it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This has a been an interwiki problem for six months. —Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lock-icon.jpg

Speedy deletion in violation of the quoted WP:CSD "I1" (redundant): A JPEG is clearly not in the same format as an SVG, not only my browser knows this (unfortunately). The icon was in use for several weeks on almost all template talk pages using {{Protection templates}} after somebody proposed it on one of these pages as general "protected" icon. I tested it because visible is better than broken from my POV on Protection templates for about a month - there were no objections. Therefore I added it to the (few) unprotected protection templates (excl. the semi-protection templates, where a lock icon makes no much sense) today. The edit history clearly stated "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Images cannot be restored. Please re-upload it and continue to discuss the issue of what image should be used.--Sean Black 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do you have a copy of the image? It's not possible to undelete images, so unless you have a copy somewhere that you can upload if the DRV passes, it won't really help to list it here... Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I only saw it on Template talk:Vprotected - most Wikipedia icons don't work with my browser, it's too old for inline PNG. Therefore I won'tb miss the few exceptions like wikipedia_minilogo.gif or this JPG. I can transform PNG to say GIF and upload that. If the result is smaller (in bytes) without untolerable losses, otherwise that would be a stupid strategy. -- Omniplex 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What are you using, Mosaic? Even Netscape 4.5 could handle inline PNG images. --Carnildo 09:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • mozilla 3. -- Omniplex 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Reupload This truely puzzles me. I assume no bad faith on Borg Hunter's part, but I really don't have a clue how this happened =) Someone enlighten me =P --mboverload@ 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, it can't be undeleted, as admins don't have the technical ability to undelete images. Perhaps it might be cached by Google, but I doubt it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you understand? It is the same thing as Image:Padlock.svg. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I certainly can't judge it, I've never seen the PNGified SVG. Should I convert it to GIF? -- Omniplex 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Google's cache is here. Hurry, it'll be gone soon. --Rory096 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• I re-uploaded a new copy. Thankfully, I had it saved! --Sunfazer |Talk 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, stupid question, where, apparently not on w:en: and also not on commons: (?) -- Omniplex 05:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete What is the big deal? Citing CSD#1 was technicaly wrong, but {{redundant}} and {{BadJPEG}} images are deleted all the time when they are no longer used and replaced by a better version. Wikipedia policy is to replace lineart like this with SVG or PNG versions whenever possible. To quote the Format section of Wikipedia:Image use policy "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format.". Getting rid of this is entierly within policy. I urge everyone with old browsers that doesn't handle PNG's at all to upgrade or switch browser ASAP. --Sherool (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a minor addition, I do agree that this one should have been sent to IFD since it's "replacement" was not the same image in a different format and all that, that would have avoided some confution. However it would most scertainly have ended up getting deleted anyway wich is why I don't think it's a huge deal. By the way unless someone gets around to actualy adding some source info to this image it will get deleted again in 7 days regardles of the outcome of this debate. --Sherool (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#I1:_Image_format. -- Omniplex 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and re-delete per above. Ral315 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete per Sherool. Dr Zak 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24 May 2006

Why you deleted the 16 May article about Major Power undeletion?

You people at Wikipedia seem to have a problem with everything I write. You keep deleting them. I thought I was opening a big and fair debate about the Major power article undeletion, but then you deleted what I wrote, as you have deleted the article Major power. I would like to know what you will do if I make changes in the articles (for better, of course), or if I undelete some articles I think were fine. You people don't want valuable contributionss, you want the articles to say only what you and some users think is true. That is not the way, because sooner or latter, you will lose credibility.

ACamposPinho 24 May 2006

• The earlier debate was not "deleted", just closed. The decision was to endorse the redirect/status quo. Your nomination for reconsideration failed. See the Recently Closed section at the bottom of this page. Xoloz 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

23 May 2006

College Confidential

VfD, delete log

Its VfD was in August of 2005 and is no longer really relevant, as its 4500 Alexa ranking shows. Also, it clearly falls under the exception to G4 "ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject," which this was. I suggest listing on AfD. --Rory096 07:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and list on AfD. A 9-month-old VfD with only five participants ought to be reinforced, especially if new evidence for notability is claimed. Also note Rory's cite of the G4 exception, which is often ignored (or missed). Also note that repeated recreations can be considered evidence of notability (can't find the cite for that in WP's guidelines, though). Powers 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse continued deletion unless new evidence of notability is presented. Per WP:WEB, Alexa rank is not evidence of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Gnews also has some hits, but they're all borderline trivial mentions. --Rory096 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse but open to new AfD listing. I know of this site; I've used it before and found it very helpful. However, the content does not inspire much confidence in the article's potential, and as the others say, Alexa rank isn't a strong notability indicator. (Although IMO it still ought to count for something.) Still, I'm open to an AfD listing because I think we'd benefit either way. Still, there's no real hurt to the encyclopaedia if this remains deleted; it's a one-sentence stub. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Ghits aren't too bad either. --Rory096 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on AfD, but I do endorse the original deletion. The person bringing this up on AfD has presented some new evidence that could merit this article's inclusion in Wikipedia. An AfD is a good way to deletermin if it's more notable now than it was last August. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, add more info, and relist on AfD. I like this website a lot, but mostly it ends up being a bunch of snobs posting their stats (4.0! Spanish Honor Society President! Biology Olympiad Semifinalist! etc. etc.) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 21:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't even use it myself (though I believe my brother does), but some people might look for it in Wikipedia and so we should have it. --Rory096 07:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete in light of new evidence presented. Silensor 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim Dingle

AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Dingle

The deletion vote for this article appears to have been initially judged based on the belief that is was a smear campaign. Later in the vote the story was confirmed to have appeared in the news, but the delete argument was then based on lack of notability under WP:BIO. However, WP:BIO specifically includes people who have become known through their involvement in a notorious event. As the subject was clearly in the news for notorious acts, it seems that it would fall into this category and thereby satisfy WP:BIO. Reconsider. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I'm unclear on why this is being brought up again now. Some people at the time set up a website TimDingle.com, which has been kept updated, if you want a summary of the story. At the time, the story was: headmaster accused in drug case. Now the story is: headmaster accused in drug case, charges later dropped. From what I can tell from googling (could be incomplete) it seems this was a local scandal, which certainly was not a big national news story, and I don't see that it's a big enough story to meet notability standards. Fan1967 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note Interesting that TimDingle.com seems to feel the need to include Wikipedia in their coverage. There is a page [13] that seems to have the story as it was before deletion (based on my vague recollection of it), as well as a link to the school's article, Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, which has a lengthy section on the incident. Fan1967 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I can remember the news story, but after the initial five minutes of infamy it only received mention in a local context (I live in Buckinghamshire). This guy is still just a headteacher who got the chop, and there are plenty of those around. -- Francs2000 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted There's a pretty clear precedent that school headmasters/principals aren't notable enough for articles themselves, and a bit of scandal in the local press isn't enough to change that. There's already a full paragraph about it in Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. I wouldn't object to redirecting Tim Dingle there, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the later votes considered the news, and they were still all in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstract People

Why, why, why is the Abstract People article being deleted? Abstract People were one of the biggest metal acts in Ireland in the 90's!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .

• Because they don't exist, thats why. Quite simple really - fictional bands don't get entries on the Wikipedia. --Kiand 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But they can always have a fictional entry! Just close your eyes, and wish upon a star... and you can read their entry, deep inside your heart! :) --Ashenai 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're hilarious....NOT. Ya stupid FOOLS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .
• I went ahead and speedied the article as a G4 and the bogus AfD page as useless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Bad faith DRV. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Totally agree with redeleting as G4, bad-faith nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The page is now protected against recreation, and I've blocked the author after he created it a fourth time. Chick Bowen 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The original speedy-deletion was as a "hoax". As we have discussed often before, being a hoax is explicitly not a speedy-deletion criterion. As individuals, we are notoriously poor at sorting the hoaxes from the real though poorly written articles on obscure topics. The subsequent re-deletions were based on the incorrect assumption that the first speedy-deletion was appropriate.
  Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Like the participants above, I can find no evidence that this band really exists. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither will I argue to overturn it without some evidence of existence. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Rossami, I think you're right. It would have been better if I'd taken it to AfD instead of re-speedying it. There's no point restoring it now (unless evidence comes along), but I'll keep in mind to be more careful with G4s. Thanks for the reminder. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Just a contrary voice here: some people, like me, consider hoax articles ("Jimmy is ten years old he is the CEO of twelve major multinational corporations which took over from Bill gates in 2009") as vandalism. Their intent is to write "Fart" on our pages, so I don't think that an obvious hoax can possibly fail to be a speedy delete. If it's the biggest metal band in Ireland for a decade and yet gets no Google hits, including on newsgroups, then there's not much debate. Geogre 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think AfD gets the job done more cleanly if any doubt is raised, and very little harm is done in the intervening five days. That said, I also understand and respect your position, Geogre. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo - Metamagician3000 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion(s) unless evidence of verifiable existence appears. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - obvious hoax, personal abuse from the author shows lack of good faith. Demiurge 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion We can't take chances on hoaxes or unverifiable material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Some remarks. As has been pointed out, this is an incorrect application of G4: that criterion was rewritten last year with just this sort of thing in mind, and it was hoped that it made clear that this kind of action is inappropriate. Just a gentle reminder.:-) As to the comment on the nominator, his crude remarks indicate rudeness and incivility; they do not mean that he is acting in bad faith. Do be careful when questioning the intentions of editors. —Encephalon 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As an Irish rock fan, living in Ireland, I think I'd have heard of 'one of the biggest metal bands in Ireland' - and I haven't. Bastun 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Bastun, and the fact that the username of the person who brought it up is Abstract People. Google search for ALL results of "abstract people" (incl. paintings) is less than 50,000, so it can't be very notable. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah

Congratulations! After a brief discussion (that I just noticed today), with a result 12d:4k:2m, they deleted the {{see also}} for the section Hanukkah#Interaction with other traditions. Was the article unsalvageable? Or the deletors simply ignorant? Now, I'm not sure of the state of the current article (could somebody please undelete for review), as I haven't looked at it since last Hannukah. But this isn't usually considered "Original Research" to document religious practices (editors aren't making up their own), and it affects a lot of folks in my neck of the woods where mixed-faith families are common. Yet, I doubt we really want to make the already long Hannukkah article even longer.... A nice short separate article would be best.

• Undelete and fix any problems, as many (5) of the AfD commentors requested. --William Allen Simpson 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Concerns of those voting delete seem well-thought-out and valid. The article does a poor job of covering this notable issue, and has no sources. I'd say a sourced rewrite from scratch would be best. (I have history-undeleted for review.) -- SCZenz 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As I am the admin who deleted the article, I will not "vote" here, but I will explain my decision. Firstly, and probably most importantly, there was a clear consensus to delete this article as it stood. Secondly, I felt that the delete votes were better informed by our policies than the keep votes were. I myself am Jewish, and am fully aware of the issues involved in this subject; however, I too felt that the article as it stood controvened WP:OR, therefore I saw no reason to go against the majority of votes. My deletion of the article does not mean that the subject is either non-encyclopaedic or unwelcome, but that the article as it stood was in contravention of our policies (a matter which numerous editors agreed upon). An article on this subject must be sourced in detail as the Christian view of Hanukkah is far from universal. Rje 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- thank you for making it available for review, the article is only a paragraph longer than it was last time I looked at it. IZAK (Jewish) wrote most of it, so I'll prod him. I've no idea what needs "sourcing" as most of it seems to be actual quotes from religious texts. Most of it I've heard in sermons from time to time on the Christian upbringing side, so there might be seminary material somewhere, but I'm long since lapsed and have nobody to ask. Believe me, there's nothing original to somebody raised 5 days a week North American Baptist (with Jewish relatives by marriage). --William Allen Simpson 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  I, along with those who voted to delete the article, am not suggesting that IZAK made up the conent of this article. The problem is that the views expressed in the article are not universal, they are those of certain individuals (I am unaware of any Christian denomination having a specific policy towards the religious festivals of other faiths). This being the case, the article absolutely must be sourced (this is made clear at WP:OR). Like I said earlier, I don't think anybody is disputing that some Christians observe Hanukkah; the problem is that it is such a minority, combined with the fact that there is no standard way in which they perform their observations, that it is necessary for this article to contain sources for it to conform with Wikipedia's established policies. Rje 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry that you're not familiar with a significant number of denominations here in the American Heartland. Merely millions of people is a "minority" when compared to Roman Catholicism.... Anyway, the only contribution I made at the time was to merge 2 similar articles, and that's how it ended up on my watchlist. While I had an important legal brief due last Thursday, I rarely check the watchlist more than once a week anyway. Now, I've done a simple Google, and among the 847,000 results, there are several that outrank even Wikipedia! They are eternalperspectives.com, biblestudy.org, and thetribulationforce.com, all "evangelical" or "messianic", just as the article says! Like I mentioned earlier, some seminarian probably has it printed in a book somewhere, but I'm not the person to ask. Looks like User:Bill Thayer is correct about the future viability of wikipedia.... --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• IZAK's response: Hi everyone: Right off the bat let me make it very clear that I did not write this article (it's actually a stub). This material was mostly first added in 2004 by User:Chad A. Woodburn -- please contact him, his user page says he is a Christian pastor and he seems to still be active. I have not tracked it, but you guys have now forced me to look up its history, so here goes: After User:Chad A. Woodburn put it into the Hanukkah article it developed as something of a composite from a few subsequent editors, (examples:) [14] ; [15] ; [16] (there are more). When I was editing the main article about the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, rather than deleting this information which was causing constant friction between the Jewish and non-Jewish contributors I opted to move it into a more appropriate article in existence at that time called Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah (interestingly, User:Chad A. Woodburn, the author seems to fit into that stream judging by what he writes about himself) which was then renamed in another move by User:William Allen Simpson where it got its new name of Christian views of Hanukkah. So that is why there is some confusion, also see the article's history page. Note that this issue of sources was also raised [17] by User:TheRingess. Thus I hope I have clarified the questions you have here. Take care. IZAK 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. By the way, I vote Undelete, as I had no idea about its present fate. It deserves an article of its own. IZAK 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you, IZAK, for taking the time! --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It may deserve an article on its own (that's my opinion, others may differ), but what was there was completely unreferenced. At least Hanukkah bush has ample footnotes. Cheers! Dr Zak 15:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A cautionary tale -- in the AfD, somebody thought this was a copyvio. As the history revealed by IZAK shows, the cited page is actually a copy of wikipedia from several months later than the original section! --William Allen Simpson 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Look guys, I know this is an emotive subject, I really do, but the purpose of this process is not to challenge the outcome of the AfD debate. That debate has been concluded, the purpose of this page, as is clearly stated in the introduction, is to challenge my interpretation of that outcome. Without wishing to appear rude, it is not relevent to this discussion what your oppinion of the article was, or whether you missed the debate or not. What is relevent is whether you think a) I misjudged the consensus to delete, or b) that, if there was such a consensus, that the votes were not valid. I am sorry if I appear a little hot-headed about this, but the existence of this debate suggests quite a serious error on my part. Rje 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The votes were not valid. 3 cite a copyvio that did not exist. The nominator and several others call it original research. 4 call it "funny" and a "fork". And the most offensive:

    The "Christian" view of Hanukkah is like the "Dutch" view of Mount Kilimanjaro: not something to have an article about.

    --William Allen Simpson 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Even discounting the copyvio votes, there was a consensus to delete. As I have already stated the article failed our criteria for original research. While I agree that term may not be strictly accurate here, and this may be causing some confusion, if you read to policy page you will realise that the article wa in violation - hence the votes for deletion. Rje 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Legitimate Afd with a clear consensus. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Original consensus was clear. Chick Bowen 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Cut-and-dry AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Although my vote was the first that mentioned a copyvio, it is important to also note that my main reason was that the article contained original research. Kevin 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus was obvious. Dr Zak 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The WP:NOR argument, raised by the nominator and most of the other people in favour of deletion, was never rebutted by anyone arguing that it should be kept. The person who tried to say it wasn't OR failed to point to any sources, which is odd given that he claims to be studying the subject area. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - consensus was clear and there were no special circumstances. Metamagician3000 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion encyclopedias and POVforks shouldn't mix. No special circumstances I can see. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Claught of a bird dairy products

I made an article on this famous store on Manitoulin Island. Claught of a bird is indeed an actual person, and he does indeed own that store. I demand that it is un-deleted, for it has good information on one of Manitoulins most popular stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk • contribs) .

• Endorse deletion, even if there were sources it would still be non notable. --Rory096 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, there were no sources...non-notable and unverified. -- Scientizzle 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Various spellings of this article title have been made--each with the same content--and deleted. Articles were created by AppleJuicefromConcentrate and his (painfully obvious) sock puppet, Motorox. -- Scientizzle 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If not a hoax then a desperate attempt for publciity. Not notable in the slightest. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Correcting the article title. I also find related deleted pages at Claught of a bird, Cluff of a bird Dairy Products, Cluth of a bird dairy products, Clauth of a bird dairy products and possibly Claught_of_a_bird_man.jpg.
  The reason given for speedy-deletion was "hoax" and "patent nonsense". I can not endorse speedy-deletion for those reasons. First, the articles were not patent nonsense in the specific and narrow way that we use that term here. Second, hoaxes are explicitly not a speedy-deletion criterion. As we've discussed often before, we've had too many problems with articles which were initially thought to be hoaxes but which turned out to be true (though poorly written and very obscure).
  The content of the articles was certainly unverified and was eligible for a regular AFD. Had this been limited to one article, I would be recommending that we overturn the speedy-deletion and allow AFD to take its course. Unfortunately, the author's other edits and patterns of behavior used up all my store of good faith. While I strongly believe that the first speedy-deletion was inappropriate, I now must endorse deletion under the vandalism criterion. Rossami (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I'm not sure what this editor is trying to accomplish, but it surely has nothing to do with the creation of a legitimate encyclopedia.Timothy Usher 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LIP6

LIP6 is one of the two largest computer science laboratories in France, with researchers participating at the highest levels (program committees of international conferences, editorial boards of scholarly journals) across a wide variety of computer science disciplines. It is the computer science research arm of Pierre and Marie Curie University (UPMC), the largest science, technology, and medicine university in France, and the highest ranked French university in the University of Shanghai international research ranking. As the researchers also make up the teaching faculty in Computer Science at UPMC, it is, with over 100 faculty, one of the largest Computer Science departments in the world. It is hard to understand how such an institution could not be notable. The copyvio concerns are mitigated by the fact that the contribution came from the copyright holder (the lab) itself. The lab administrators were not contacted, as they should have been following Wikipedia's deletion policy, to see if this would be a problem. The answer would have been that the copyright problem is not a problem, and the needed permissions for use of the text and images can be granted. Furthermore, it is not a commercial promotion. It is true, clearly that the style and content must be modified so that it conforms to Wikipedia's style considerations and NPOV. However, the material provided should serve as a good basis for this, and the original authors are happy to work as part of the Wikipedia community in making the necessary edits. A rewrite is called for, but we do not understand the speedy deletion decision. -- 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite The topic seems to be notable, but Wikipedia does not want articles which are merely copy-and-paste jobs from official websites, even if they aren't technically copyvios. We also prefer that articles not be written by their subjects or anyone closely connected with the subject. If anyone cares to write a real article, it would probably stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Based on the evidence available at the time, I would also have deleted this as a probable copyright violation. We have had such severe problems with unsourced and illegal content, especially violations about images, that we have unfortunately been forced to take aggressive actions. A rewrite seems appropriate but please be very careful to document the copyright provenance of any text or images copied over. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Request undeletion of rewritten article I did precisely as suggested here, writing a short article with no copyvio, following the structure and style of an established article on another computer science laboratory, and, not even eight hours later, the new article has vanished. It seems whoever did this does not care to partake in the deletion review process, as no justification for deleting the rewritten article has appeared in this thread. Nor, does it seem, has this new deletion respected the general criteria for speedy deletion, which specifically says: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical", which it clearly is not. MyPOV 6:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The deleting admin has already self-reverted the action and apologized in the edit summary. Rossami (talk)

Oz categories

CfD

There used to be several categories sorting the inamates in the Oz TV series:

• Category:Homeboys of Oz
• Category:The Aryan Brotherhood in Oz
• Category:Muslim Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Latin Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Italian Prisoners of Oz

Which were deleted recently by a few people who were against it. (Unfortunately, this deletion vote was not mentioned in any page, so no one could speak for these categories.

As you may see, there are too many articles regarding oz's prisoners, and this categorizing must take place. It should be also mentioned that these categories had some text in them portraying these gangs, and describing the main event that had happened to them during the course of the series.

I will put a link in here in the series' article talk page. Thanks! OzOz 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• endorse closure and keep deleted. I suggested to the review nominator that he perhaps write an article like Gangs of Oz (TV series) and include the information that he wants to have in the categories there, but it looks like he has rejected that idea. Categories should not have significant text in them, just guidelines for what should be included in that category. He could then have little headers for Fooians of Oz, describe the gang, and link to whatever related articles were needed either in a text or list form. Original multiple category discussion was here and previous Irish prisoners deletion discussion was here, and I was the closing admin in both cases. Syrthiss 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Was a very usefull categorizing IMO. I don't care about the text, though. As far as I'm concerned, it can be sent to a different article. Jimbryho 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Randy MacFarFarAway 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Proper notice was given on the categories themselves, and the vote was unanimous to merge. No valid reason has been given for overturning the CFD. The text that OzOz mentions above is irrelevant, because anything beyond a brief description of a category's contents should be put in articles, not in categories. Postdlf 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, CfD got it right. This was an unnecessary categorization. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is kind of irrelevant, but why were there redirects to those categories in articlespace? --Rory096 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the admin arrived at the only conclusion available from the discussion, the categories were correctly tagged: process was followed correctly. Moreover the Category:Oz (TV series) characters does not seem to require subcategories at this time. Tim! 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I voted to keep them (with some renaming), but nearly everybody else felt otherwise, so I think the admin came to the right conclusion. They can all go in the main Oz characters category.--Mike Selinker 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. If the rationale of those who vote to overturn is that they didn't get a chance to see the CfD debate, then I'm okay with opening it up for debate again.--Mike Selinker 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. There are about 60 articles there not including the CO's (Which some of you suggested to be sent to the main category along with the inmates. It needs to be sorted better. Plus, I believe that many readers might be interested only in the inmates of a certain gang (Instead of the entire category where all of the inmates shown throughout the series' run are put together. Yuval madar 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. Green Snake 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure As far as I'm aware all the cats were correctly tagged so notice was served of the deletion discussion contrary to OzOz's comment above. (I would reconsider my vote if someone could demonstrate otherwise). BTW, 60 articles in one category is not "too many". Very few TV series have multiple sub-sub-cats for their characters. Those that do are either exceptionally long-running (e.g. Doctor Who), have multiple spin-offs (e.g. Stargate), or both (e.g. Star Trek). Valiantis 14:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "As far as I'm aware"? They wasn't, and if you can't check nor remember, how can you say that? Can one of the admins please check the deleted versions and confirm that. (I am certain that is the case because I have been checking these categories on a daily basis before the deletion, and yet didn't even know it took place untill it was done) OzOz 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have checked and each category was indeed properly tagged; however Conradege (talk · contribs) removed the tags, in one case in the next minute after it had been added! Maybe you could have a word with him? Oh, wait…you already did. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete My friend OzOz has just informed me of this vote and asked me to join it. Dor Segev 17:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, no prior edits except 1 to his talk page. :) Dlohcierekim 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and keep deleted and chastise votestacking. Would be better served by an article which detailed this stuff. Alphax ^τεχ 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. It is also doubtful how many real-life users the "Overturn and undelete" represent.Timothy Usher 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hulk 2

• Overturn. The article on Hulk 2 was previously voted for deletion because it was pretty much unverifiable. Web research on the topic at that time (June 2005) only produced actors confirming they _would not_ be involved in a Hulk sequel. On 28 April 2006, Marvel confirmed that a sequel to the 2003 film was under development.

Currently the article Hulk 2 is protected and redirects to Hulk (film). I therefore propose that the page be edited to redirect to The Incredible Hulk (film) (the apparent working title of the film) which in turn redirects to the Sequel section of the 2003 film article. When sufficient information about the new film becomes available, the sequel information can then be spun out into its own article. Journeyman 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: redirects to sections don't work. &#0151; JEREMY 09:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Your suggestion would create a Double redirect, which is a Bad Thing. Ask again when you are ready to create the standalone article. Thryduulf 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, premature per Thryduulf. When the article is written, I don't even think you need DRV; you can ask any admin to unprotect Hulk 2 and then properly redirect it. Thatcher131 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think the protection is needed, so I unprotected it.  Grue  12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

22 May 2006

Xombie

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xombie

It was deleted due to not meeting WP:WEB. Xombie has been in two magazines so far Fangoria and Rue Morque]. This isn't advertising for the site, its about the flash cartoon that's being turned into a movie, how can Wikipedia not have this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the AFD discussion. Had I seen this deletion discussion, I would also have argued to delete. I can not convince myself that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include entries for every flash cartoon that comes along. Rossami (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. Af first glance, this seems to be a classic "No consensus" AfD, but only one of the delete keep (gosh, what a typo!) votes was valid: one was from an anon, and the other was from a very new user. That puts it right on the border for admin's discretion, and in this case, the closing admin applied it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all well and good, but I think Simonoldyk's reason for proposing an undeletion was not that the AfD was too close for a decision to be made, but that new evidence has been found which shows that it does meet the unofficial standard of WP:WEB. AfroDwarf 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. So here's a situation where the article clearly did not show it met WP:WEB upon its deletion, and we now have evidence that it, in fact, does meet WP:WEB. Without seeing what was there before, I don't know what the article looked like, but given that it seems that process is being followed by coming to DRV instead of just recreating, and WP:WEB (the justification for deletion) is now met, we should undelete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Valid AfD, per Deathphoenix's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, not every flash cartoon that comes along gets made into a feature-length film released on DVD. Furthermore, this series clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. AfroDwarf 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no consensus on AfD and some claims to notability were presented.  Grue  12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as per User:Deathphoenix above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Howell

In the heat of the moment of deletion, many failed to look at the facts. A notable West Virginian.

• SBA Exporter of the Year for WV 2003
• Inducted into WV's GeneratioNext, 40 WV Leaders under 40
• Award from the WV Office of Tourisms Motorsports Council for promoting the State Through Motorsports

Nationally Known Automotive Person in TV and Print

• Car and Driver Magazine 2003, circulation world wide 1 million +
• C&D Magazine SuperCar Challenge Winnner. Considered to be the best of the best tuners in the world
• Mopar Muscle top Magazine for Dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler Products
• Named a Mopar mover and shaker in 1999 by Mopar Muscle Magazine
• Internet Movie Database
• DIY Networks Tricked Out-SRT-4 Exhaust Episode
• DIY Networks Tricked Out-Computer Episode

International Credit Card Fraud Expert

• CBS Evening News
• Wall Street Journal May 1, 2003
• Japanese National Television Appearence on Credit Card Fraud
• Lectures to groups nationwide on Credit Card Fraud Oct 31st 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM - How to Prevent & Reduce Losing Money to Credit Card Fraud

--71Demon 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been deleted twice; the first time following an AfD (Admins can see the final version before this deletion at [18]), with the consensus being that the article failed WP:BIO, WP:CORP and/or WP:VAIN. Having seen the content of the deleted version I would also have voted to delete for these reasons. The second time (earlier today) it was speedy deleted as an nn-bio (CSD:A7) but it could also have been deleted under CSD:G4 (recreation of previoulsy deleted material), that version [19] contained even less information than the previously deleted version and no substantiated notability claims so this was a perfectly valid deletion. Endorse deletions but allow recreation iff notability can be established. I suggest that you start composing an article in your userspace and only move it to the main namespace when it substantially improves on the first version to avoid a further speedy deletion under G4 or A7. If notability is still not established then there should be no prejudice against a second AfD. Thryduulf 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Never should have been deleted. Meets all criteria for a good Wikipedia article. --70.17.192.78 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/Restore this never should have been deleted --63.243.30.51 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• As far as I see it the facts weren't actually presented in such clarity during the afd debate, and so I don't see that the decision to delete was wrong. I'm with Thryduulf: if notability can be established then restore. -- Francs2000 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that I must disagree with the assertion that the facts above were not considered. In fact, they were clearly documented in the deleted version of the article. I find little evidence convincing me that they were ignored or overlooked by the discussion participants. I must also disagree with 71Demon's specific assertion above that Howell is an "international credit fraud expert". Three of the four articles he/she cites as evidence demonstrate no such thing. (The fourth is in Japanese so I could not evaluate it.) Howell was interviewed as a small business owner who has been affected by international credit card fraud. He is no more "expert" than any other small business owner so afflicted.
  I endorse closure (keep deleted) but, as Thryduulf said, there is no prejudice against a new article more thoroughly documenting his achievements. If such an article is written and upheld, we can do a history-restore at that time. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. Allow re-creation if the article addresses the concerns mentioned above and in the AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• (Caveat: I was the nom on the AfD in question). Endorse closure as a valid, good-faith AfD. I have no prejudice to recreation as long as it illustrates notability. To do so, the article should focus on Howell's work in the world of hot rods and automobiles (where he may possibly be notable in a relative sense) and it should prove said notability in that field. His status as a guy that has been interviewed because his business was ripped off (at least until his book is published) and his goal of seeking a seat on a local county commission should only be mentioned as side-notes and do not contribute either way to his notability or lack there of. youngamerican (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. Should never have been deleted. Deal with the issues with the article separately from considerations of whether we should have an article. Please don't use AfD as an easy road to fixing problematic articles. Grace Note 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

New Sincerity

This article needed expanding, not deleting. It is a verifiable media theory, although the article itself needed work. The opinion when discussed was mixed, but this is a real and serious theory that should have a place on Wikipedia. If the article is not reinstated, can I at least have the original content to be worked into a fuller, referenced article that can be? --Hippo Shaped 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Sincerity for the deletion debate.

• Endorse deletion but allow userfication. This was a valid closure of the AfD, but based on the comments by some participants it seems as though there is potential for a valid, verifiable article and indeed some work was done to improve the article during the debate, but this was not enough to influence a turnaround in voting. I recommoned that Hippo Shaped be allowed the content to work on it. I feel that it do the article good not to be associated with some of its mid-life incarnations as these were detrimental to people's opinions of it at AfD. Thryduulf 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I voted keep on the AfD discussion, but it was closed properly, if you can come up with a valid, verifiable article, then please recreate it in your User space and bring it back here for review. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. It was relisted twice, so it was a bit of a difficult one (though when I relisted it the second time, I didn't realise it was already relisted), but I think it was closed appropriately. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Successful Praying

I request the return of the article on the book Successful Praying because it was deleted without due respect for the deletion process. I would ask that this request be based on whether or not due process was followed (which I think is strong) and not on whether the article may or may not survive a more considered delete process (which I admit is less strong). See also the discussion with the admin about this deletion. Thanks, Brusselsshrek 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Technical undelete as it clearly wasn't a speedy candidate, however I recommend Brussels writes an article on the author Frederick Julius Huegel instead of or at least before writing an article on his book. Articles on authors can frequently contain most of the useful information about their writing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I have little doubt this was done in good faith, a table of contents of a book is copyrighted. After stripping the TOC and the copyrighted cover images (they can only be used in articles that discuss the book -- not ones that say Title is a book by so and so), all you have left is "Successful Praying, subtitled an explanation of ten rules which guarantee answered prayer is the title of a book by Frederick Julius Huegel." with an ISBN and a link. I don't think that result was an article. I would agree that an article about the author is probably more feasible, but if Brussel can mention something about the book other than the basic details (especially what makes the book special enough for an entry), I have little problems with a recreation. But I don't think the original should be reinstated. Userfy if he wants to expand. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I had fully intended to write more information about the contents of the book, but the stub was deleted within DAYS of it being created. The TOC was there to form a skeleton for what I was about to write. To argue that the content was not sufficient to justify recreation misses many important points:
    1. the article had only been created a few days earlier (thus deleted contrary to wikipedia guidelines of allowing a stub a reasonable time to develop).
    2. the author of the article was not informed of the deletion, except as a "speedy-delete" (while he was asleep) and so had no chance to add the real value which is suggested was missing
    3. the proper procedure was not followed, and I as the person to have most suffered from this lack of procedure, am simply asking for the right to create the article which I wanted to create.

    I will add that I have now spent a huge amount of time simply fighting against this speedy-delete, and it is a real tragedy that I waste almost all of the time I spend on Wikipedia editing recently because what I see as this admins blunder, rather than contributing useful stuff.Brusselsshrek 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Unfortunately, Brusselsshrek's statement of his/her intention to expand the stub past copy-vio status does nothing to protect the project. Every page must stand alone as is at the time you hit the "save page" button. The courts have not yet sanctioned us for tolerating copyvios for short periods but that is a theory that we should not test. Take the time to write a solid, non-copyvio stub. Then post it.
  As to Brusselsshrek's claims that he/she was not informed, no notice is required nor is any such notice appropriate (though it can, in some cases, be courteous). Please read (or re-read) WP:OWN. None of us has any claim to ownership of any page here. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, per Mgm & Rossami. Sorry, Brusselsshrek, dealing with copyvios takes precedence over everything. Even if you plan to expand the article, any content that is a copyright violation is simply not acceptable (for legal reaasons) and must be removed from the article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Deathphoenix. Although I would have taken a different route (tagging the copyvio and asking the editor to userfy it until it was further along) the destination is the same. Thatcher131 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get the point about copyvio. Question though, I have done the identical thing for the article The Cross and the Switchblade, that is, I have scanned the front/back cover of the book. Is that not copyvio? What is the guideline? I know there's a lot of general stuff written here about copyvio, but what is the story on book covers? Can I or can't I copy them? The book covers for the Successful Praying article were scanned at exactly the same resolution or size as the book cover for The Cross and the Switchblade for which nobody seems to be saying anything. Thanks for clarifying. Brusselsshrek 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the guideline at WP:FAIR it seems that a scan of a book cover to accompany an article about the book is ok. However, copying the text from the jacket so as to constitute the body of the article is definitely not. I would say that at least half of The Cross and the Switchblade is an unacceptable copyright violation. You should find some other way to describe the contents of the book in your own words. Thatcher131 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Videohypertransference

Wow... I really hope I am doing this right. Sincere apologies if I am getting this protocol wrong - I am quite a newbie. I have 2 points to make about the deletion of this article, or maybe 3. 1) May I have the text copied to my userspace? If all else fails here, I would at least be interested in getting the latest version of the text for my own personal use. 2) I didn't get any warning about the deletion notice (prolly because I didn't login for a couple of weeks), so I never got a chance to say anything about the deletion vote. I think the article is a valid attempt, and I would be happy to try and source the article a bit more thoroughly. However, as I pointed out on the discussion page, there isn't much information directly available on this topic via Google. It is a very recent phenomenon, and I did my best to scientifically describe the empirical facts. This is just my opinion, but I often find people have a very strange view of what science is! 3ish) I think the article can be improved if it is fully undeleted. The phenomenon of videohypertransference is a real one, and deserves documenting. It has grown out of the rise of video (and video nasties) in the west, and the popularity of video game culture in Japan. Thanks for your consideration, --Dan|^(talk) 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved the text to User:Dmb000006/Videohypertransference. Please stick a {{delete|unwanted user subpage}} notice on it when this deletion review is closed and you're otherwise done with the text, as Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Anyway, I think the main issue is: does anyone actually refer to this as "videohypertransference"? Otherwise the article is fundamentally original thought. In the absence of specific new evidence that would theoretically have caused the very clear consensus in the AfD to be otherwise, endorse closure. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... Would it be possible to get the discussion page restored too? I made some useful comments for the would-be deleter on that page, as well as some notes regarding the stories in the media. Thank you! --Dan|^(talk) 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, which was overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 May

1. Automobile manufaturers categories Sent back to CFD. 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Naismith Family Contested PROD, restored and sent to AfD. 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
3. Philip Sandifer DRV aborted, listed at AfD. 2006-05-26 19:30:22 (UTC) Review
4. Church of Reality Minimal discussion, but kept deleted on the basis of lack of stated grounds in the nomination. 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Azn people in United States Kept deleted unanimously. 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
6. AlmightyLOL Kept deleted unanimously. 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
7. List of video game collector and special editions By strict "tally", discussion was "tied", 3-3; however, weight of argument tipped in favor of relisting. 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
8. User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims Speedy deletion endorsed. 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
9. WWE Divas Do New York Keep closure endorsed. 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
10. I Like Monkeys, speedy reversed and send to AFD. 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Science3456 sockpuppetry AfDs, debates relisted except GNAA. 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Structures of the GLA, debate relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second nomination) 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
13. Prhizzm, undeleted and relisting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination). 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
14. List of proper nouns containing a bang This case was complicated by an out-of-process deletion during DRV. In consideration of the consensus afterwards expressed that this out-of-process deletion was in error, article will be relisted afresh at AfD. 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Brooks Kubik Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 17:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
16. ProgressSoft Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 16:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Aww Nigga Kept deleted and protected. 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
18. that ass Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
19. Matrixism Status quo (previous deletions and current redirect) endorsed. 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
20. Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system Discussion subpage undeleted. 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Male Unbifurcated Garment Deletion closure endorsed. 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Major power Redirect closure endorsed unanimously. 18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
23. User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright Deletion endorsed. 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
24. James R. Gillespie Deletion endorsed. 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Longest streets in London Deletion endorsed. 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
26. JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Template:Mills corp Undeleted and relisted on AfD. 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Israel News Agency Undeleted, relisting on AFD has been suggested. 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Eminem's enemies Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Cock block Narrow majority, 12-11, favor undeletion and relisting at AfD. 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Ryan Rider Userfied. 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
32. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 12:18:11 (UTC) Review
33. myg0t Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 08:06:33 (UTC) Review
34. Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine relisted to AFD 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Category:Sylviidae Accidental deletion, content restored. 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Closure as merge endorsed unanimously. 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
37. DJ Cheapshot, SpyTech Records and 4-Zone (rapper) Speedy deletions endorsed. 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
38. The Juggernaut Bitch Kept Deleted. 02:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
39. Thirty Ought Six Deletion endorsed. (Current redirect is unrelated.) 02:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
40. RAD Data Communications Kept deleted. - 12:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Link leak Kpet deleted. - 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
42. Conservative Underground Kept deleted. - 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Template:Tracker Kept deleted. - 11:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Gordon Cheng - Restored and relisted, now at AfD. - 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
45. Category:Wold Newton family members - Close of keep endorsed. - 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Ryze - Undeleted and relisted on AFD per consensus. 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Jack Berman - Restored history per consensus. 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
48. Ghey - kept deleted but protection removed. Redirect target undecided. 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
49. CEWC-Cymru - Restored as contested PROD. 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Nephew (band) - Mistaken nomination. Kept deleted. No prejudice against creation of a different article at the same title. 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Andrew Kepple - Disputed prod, restored and listed to AFD. 03:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Sports betting forum Resotored and stubbed by deleting admin. 07:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
53. YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam Closure of "keep" endorsed. 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Upfront Rewards Kept deleted and protected. 07:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
55. David Anber Kept deleted. 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
56. User_talk:Gomi-no-sensei/archive restored by deleting admin. 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 Kept deleted and protected. 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Willy on Wheels Kept deleted and protected. 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Aaron Donahue Kept deleted and protected. 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
60. OITC fraud Closure endorsed without prejudice to NPOV article being written. 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
61. StarCraft_II Kept deleted and protected against recreation. 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
62. Michael Crook Kept deleted. 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Dualabs Endorse "non-deletion" outcome but strong objections raised to closer's methods. 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
64. VOIPBuster Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Review
65. List of people with absolute pitch kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Template:Infobox Conditionals never actually deleted but no support for undoing the redirect. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
67. MusE returned to normal editing. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Template:Ifdef kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Reverend and The Makers. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverend and The Makers. 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Userbox, Userboxes. Both cross-space redirects restored by a slight 10-8 majority and relisted on WP:RFD. 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
71. Global Resource Bank Initiative. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank Initiative. 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cool (African philosophy). Closure endorsed but page already redirects to African aesthetic anyway. 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
73. Cajun Nights MUSH Kept deleted unanimously. 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Rosario Isasi Closure as keep endorsed unanimously, without prejudice to a future AfD nom. 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
75. El kondor pada Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Review
76. Futuristic Sex Robotz DRV nomination withdrawn. 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
77. Insert Text Redirect restored by unanimous consensus. 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
78. Scott Thayer Deletion closure endorsed. 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
79. Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease Recreation permitted. 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Category:User kon Restored, tho I (Syrthiss) am about to relist it with a cogent explanation at CFD. 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
81. List of "All your base are belong to us" external links Deletion endorsed unanimously. 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
82. SilentHeroes Different from CSD A4 material, restored and relisted at AFD. 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Bands (neck) Restored after copyright problem satisfactorily resolved. 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Review
84. The Amazing Racist Deletion closure endorsed. 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
85. User:Avillia/CVU_Politics Restoration permitted after removal of copyrighted material. 13:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
86. Gurunath Keep closure at AfD endorsed unanimously. 13:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Relisted for 3rd AfD, after deprecation of prematurely-closed 2nd AfD. 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
88. The Game (game), most recent AfD endorsed, page restored. 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review

Recent userbox discussions

• Template:User Republican, Template:User Democrat (result kd, WP:SNOW, strong endorsement and blatantly polemical userboxes.
• Template:User Chinese reunification (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW it has emerged in debate that PRC/ROC question is *de facto* polemical and divisive.)
• Template:User UKIP, Template:User UK Conservative, etc (result Close, WP:SNOW,massive endorsement for deletion)
• Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en Speedy undeleted and listed at TfD after initial defective DRV. 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User Church of Christ (keep deleted)
• Template:User atheist (result undelete)
• Template:User scientology (result kd)
• Template:User liberal (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW, massive endorsement)
• Template:User Hell, Template:User Ideal Dictator, and Template:User Elitist Consensus was to keep User Hell (which has already survived TfD), and undelete and TfD the others. 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User liberty (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User chav & Template:User notchav (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User hate (result kept deleted. WP:SNOW. Only nominator for review wanted it undeleted).
• Template:User Wikicheese-ologist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User ProIsrael: (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User varied sex: (result kept deleted, closed as frivolous challenge)
• Template:User Triceratops Accident (result kept deleted)
• Template:User antiuserboxdeletion (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Darwinist(result kept deleted)
• User:UBX/Communist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User No Marxism (result kept deleted)
• Template:User infidel undeleted.
• Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master ... it's complicated discussion
• Template:User against Saud (result almost unanimous keep deleted)
• Template:User_Unamerican and others (result nomination delisted early; template kept deleted)
• Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover (result kept deleted).
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts (result kept deleted)
• Template:User admins ignoring policy (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Unamerican and others (result kept deleted)
• Template:User vomit (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism (result: both kept deleted)
• Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker (Archive#Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker: undeleted and relisted on TfD)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Same Sex Marriage (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User independent Iraq (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User antiparty (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User review (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Copyright Nazi (result: kept deleted)
• User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF (result: undeleted)
• Template: User evol-X (result: kept deleted)
• Template: User feminist (result: undeleted)
• Template:User userbox insurgent (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User userbox revolution (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
• Template:User opposes ubx screwing (result: kept deleted as protected page)
• Template:User USA Police State (result)
• Template:User No Meat (result: recreated as redirect)
• George W. Bush templates
• Pseudo-templates Userbox:Anti ACLU, Userbox:Anti UN (result)

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

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. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

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.

• Can someone please temporarily undelete Badger Badger Badger Parodies as I intend to place it on adhocipedia (see my userpage). CMIIW 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are you? Please sign your post with ~~~~. Rossami (talk)
• I will be very grateful if a kind administrator posted the contents of the deleted userboxes Drug-free, atheist, evolution2, evol-N and antiuserboxdeletion at a subpage of my userbox for userification. By moving them to the userspace, T1/T2 won't apply. Thanks. Loom91 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No one will help me? Loom91 08:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll help you userfy them. Metamagician3000 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

• Hazelwood Central High School - This was actually kept in AFD, but deleted for being empty. I made a redirect. For the moment, I wish the history to be undeleted. Then I can review it, and decide if it should be a stand-alone article, or remain a redirect. Please note, some older versions have a copyvio, so be sure to restore an appropriate version. It might be, that without the copyvio, there's not enough for an article, which I'll know when I see it. --Rob 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... that was one of the few school articles I have voted to delete, and I am almost inclined to call the speedy deletion as a valid application of A3. Nonetheless, a history only undeletion isn't harmful so I have done so. Please make some real expansions to the article before "articleizing" this redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on my recollection, the entire article was pretty much a cut and paste from the school district web site, so I don't think you'll find anything to salvage. Fan1967 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Religion of Peace - I'd like to see, whether the issues of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religion_of_Peace have been addressed. Raphael1 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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 November 9}}</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 November 9}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 9|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".

30 May 2006

Springfield M21

The closer made an error in their assessment of the discussion. They saw 4-2 delete/redirect. However, the first delete vote was qualified that "if the redirect is incorrect". After consulting with editors at the target article, the redirect was shown to be appropriate. This would mean 3/3, no consensus. Furthermore, the discussion with the editors at the redirect target (M21 (rifle)) are a good argument for redirection. Another point is that some voters determined that the article was invalid because its topic did not exist. This was based on a statement made in the article. However, statements by editors at Talk:M21 (rifle) suggest that that statement was not accurate. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ultra-weak overturn and redirect to M21 (rifle): While the AfD itself seemed to be valid, I don't think that the earlier voters considered the discussion in the above-mentioned talk page. M21 (rifle) is a very good target for this article. That being said, the article as it stood when AfDed really wasn't that good (an article that begins by saying that there it doesn't exist?), so I think a good alternative would be to just create a redirect while leaving the article history deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see anything in the history that was necessary to merge to the target article. Since deletion does not prevent the creation of new content at the same title, I have been bold and created the redirect. I see no harm in a history-only undeletion when the DRV discussion is complete. Rossami (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User CCP

Not sure why this was deleted. Userboxes are allowed for basically all major political parties in the world. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political_Parties. Can someone cite the reason it was deleted? And should it be undeleted? Hong Qi Gong 03:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)#

• Endorse deletion. Who on earth told you that those templates were allowed? They're all subject to summary deletion according to T1. --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  By virtue of the fact that they are still in existence, and nobody has tagged them for deletion, that's why I'm implying that they're allowed. Hong Qi Gong 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  That's not valid. That's like saying because I'm chewing gum in class and the teacher hasn't noticed yet, everyone's allowed to chew gum in class. Ral315 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  Not so, your analogy is incorrect. All those Userboxes for political parties are listed in public. It is as if the teacher is aware that you are chewing gum, but does not tell you to stop. So yes, they are in fact allowed. Hong Qi Gong 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, give us a chance. We'll get around to the others in time. It wouldn't be very nice to just delete the whole lot of them at once. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  I cannot understand the point in NOT deleting them all at once if political userboxes are indeed banned. It seems to me you want it to slip under the radar as it were. - Hahnchen 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well we certainly don't want to go for mass deletions. This is the middle way. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well why not go for mass deletion? There is basically no reason to keep certain political parties around, yet delete certain other ones. Hong Qi Gong 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  I agree, why not mass deletion? If it's against the rules, I'm sure someone higher up can just delete the whole page of political userboxes. If it's according to some "T1" rule, then you either delete all or keep all, there's no "middle way". BlueShirts 06:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  When there is a mass deletion it draws enough people to DRV to actually overturn the decision. When it is just a few at a time it can come in under the radar. More people need to monitor TfD and DRV if they really want to represent their view. It is an interesting pattern where if a userbox goes to TfD it has a good chance of suriving. It if goes via speedy to DRV then it is much harder to get a concensus, or super majority, or act of local deity to get it restored. Some of the boxes have been here multiple times over the last six months. It it doesn't work the first time the deletionists keep coming back since it is apparently acceptable to use T1 multiple times on one template. If someone else restores the template then it suddenly becomes wheel warring and the bans start. --StuffOfInterest 13:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion via T1. Ral315 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - no ideological stuff in template space, per T1.5, or whatever it's called. It's certainly nothing personal; they're all on the way out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete invalid deletion. Tolerance is less divisive. --70.218.3.206 05:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Everyking 06:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Somewhere, someone should try to back to the concept of concensus. --StuffOfInterest 10:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - classic example of a T2 box. Metamagician3000 10:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  T2 is currently not policy. Read Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. --User:Cuivienen 30 May 2006]] at 12:40 (UTC)

  That's moot; T1 is commonly interpreted to include templates that fall under the T2 proposal, and the community has repeatedly endorsed this interpretation on review. --Tony Sidaway 12:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  [20] Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  "commonly interpreted" is contradicted by the discussion at Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. There is a group that holds this interpretation, there is another group that disagrees. Size of both groups inadequately measured to say which is larger. However, the fact that two-thirds of timely discussers at Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll wanted a policy directly contradicting T2 is evidence against the proposition that T2 is widely supported. Additionally, attempting to explicitly include T2 in T1 caused a great deal of debate as to whether that was policy and caused T1 in its entirety to be removed from WP:CSD or labeled as not-policy a couple times. GRBerry 14:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - template space isn't for unhelpful bias-promoting bumperstickers. T1,T2,T3.. whatever? whocares? This is an encyclopedia committed to neutrality, these don't help. --Doc ^ask? 13:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Stop deleting userbox templates (and, indeed, creating new ones) until there is consensus on the whole userbox debate. Alternatively, delete all the political party templates simultaneously (I understand they're all listed in one place so this shouldn't be difficult) along with all the userbox templates espousing a religious, ethical or moral viewpoint. But really, continually deleting userbox templates and going through this tedious process with every one is getting nobody anywhere, slowly. Bastun 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to TfD There is nothing asserted above to indicate that this template is so troublesome that it needs to be deleted prior to a normal review discussion. (And I can't see the template to check myself.) GRBerry 14:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Invalid deletion. Hong Qi Gong 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per T1: just considering all the screeching and hollering should give people an idea of just how bloody disruptive these damn things can be. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Perfectly valid deletion. This does not belong in template space. Rx StrangeLove 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted seems pretty clear to me. --pgk^(talk) 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep Deleted Political affiliation templates are inherently polemical and divisive. -- Drini 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

29 May 2006

Ali Zafar

This article was deleted twice as a copyvio of Zafar's official site, then once again as a one-line substub which did not assert notability, then a fourth version was deleted as a copyvio again. After that the earth was salted.

Zafar is clearly a notable singer, and so I've written an article from scratch at User:Samuel Blanning/WIP. I would like the community's approval to unprotect Ali Zafar and move the article there. The weird text at the bottom is neutered categories, and the image is nowiki-ed out as it is fair use and can't be used in userspace - those will obviously be fixed when I move it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, permission granted, etc. Whatever it is, excellent rewrite. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment can you just delete the protection tag and make the new article? It's a valid reason do to that. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/move userspace draft over JoshuaZ 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Pottery Barn Rule: No problem, of course, and maybe a little hypercorrective in asking, but, uh, if you fix it, will you own it? (I.e. will you keep it straight from the obviously dedicated fans who want to scribble on it?) Geogre 03:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I went ahead and moved it over, as the article in its current form has never been deleted so as far as I'm aware, all I really wanted was confirmation that I could take the protection off. To answer Geogre's question: yes. And even if I didn't intend to, I don't think it would be a reason not to recreate it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Me either. I just wanted to be sure. I don't argue that things should be deleted because they're vandalized, but I worry when we have a lower profile article that attracts vandals. (Those hundreds of high school articles that people fought viciously to allow are probably not on very many watchlists.) There are just some things where I sleep better at night knowing that they're being watchlisted. Geogre 11:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Scienter

Scienter was originally a dictionary term, and was deleted under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. However, while I realise that it was a dictionary article, I do believe that we can expand it and discuss good examples of its usage, such the scienter requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 1960. I would like it to be undeleted, its structure modified, and an {{expand}} tag added to it so we can discuss in more detail how the term applies to the law. Please also see answers.com for a few examples of how it could be done. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• ???? Comment I don't the word "scienter" or anything like it at 18 U.S.C. § 1960. Could you explain? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See Section 373 of the Patriot Act, it amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960 to provide a scienter requirement for Section 1960 violations. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Its former content was more-or-less verbatim that at wikt:scienter. It was speedied as an A5 transwikied, though, not A7, although it does not appear to actually have ever left Wikipedia. This is probably a good case for just diving in and writing a proper encyclopedia article and freely doing a history-only undel afterwards. However, it never having had an AfD, the second speedy was technically out of process, and there's a good-faith request for its resurrection, so I suppose there is no harm in granting it. -Splash^talk 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment OK, there are a scad of references to it in Google Books so it's clear that it's in reasonably widespread use, and if 6250 pages of 100 books mention it, I'm sure an article can be written about it. My next question is: why is it important to undelete the existing, poorly written dictdef? If Ta bu shi da yu is going to write a real article why can't he (or anyone else) go ahead and do so? The article was merely deleted, not protected against re-creation. Why is action being requested here? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Because if I recreated it, I'd probably get away with it, but if someone else recreated it they risk being seen as disruptive for readding a deleted article. I thought that DR was the best route. No controversy, but DR is the place I take such things. :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 22:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think that the request was to avoid any potential allegations of a wheel war. I've undeleted the article, as there are no objections, and I'll ask TBSDY to expand the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Will do so soon. Incidently, it wasn't about wheel warring, I'm just following policy and best practice. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

28 May 2006

Auto repair shop

This has apparantly been deleted two times already by User:UtherSRG, but shouldn't have been. It's a notable topic and should have an entry. A lot can be said about it. I've restored it and added the template. Hoof38 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Huh. Mark this down. Overturn and undelete previous version as stubbed. It's not a speedy, and it's not a valid G4 repost deletion because it never went through AfD.  RasputinAXP  c 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Rasputin. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Rasputin. --Metropolitan90 03:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• The complete contents of this page are "An auto repair shop is a place where automobiles are repaired and auto mechanics work." I have no objections if someone wants to write a real article here but the current contents do qualify under speedy-deletion case A3 (article consisting only of ... a rephrasing of the title). Rossami (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Notable context, but poor content. It'll get better. Mr Stephen 08:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami but without prejudice against an actual article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: It's a restatement of the title, and a violation of the deletion policy besides (dictionary definition) as well as a CSD as "empty." Geogre 12:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until someone writes an article beyond an A3, per Rossami. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this is a speedy as a simple restatement of the title, CSD A3! Evil that I am, I have correspondingly redeleted it. There is zero value in undeleting such an article or allowing its continued existence, but anyone who wants to can not spend their edits complaining here and instead write a useful, valid, encyclopedic stub. If noone can persuade themselves to use their edits in such a manner, then we can conclude that at the present time, there is no desire for the article. -Splash^talk 15:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added more to the article. Now it's not merely a restatement of the title. This articles should not be deleted until it's decided whether or not it should be undeleted or kept deleted. Hoof38 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Also Car repair shop by the same editor. · rodii · 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Got it. Note that the author of these 'articles' is an indef blocked, sockpuppeting vandal. -Splash^talk 16:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I assume you mean the author of the previous articles, as I've just recently created an account here, have not done any vandalism and haven't used any sockpuppets. Hoof38 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I do. More specifically, I mean their original author. I should have been clearer. I've moved the article to a proper title. -Splash^talk 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia v search engines

Wikipedia v search engines was deleted, no reasons stated and no discussion. Opt for reinstatement.--Shtove 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted per WP:SNOW (yes, I know, not policy, but nonetheless). The content in its entirety was "Wikipedia will supplant search engines in retrieving non-commercial information on the web." Not exactly a bastion of encyclopediac content.  RasputinAXP  c 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not that WP:SNOW is ever applicable, but doesn't this meet a speedy criteria anyway? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Borderline A3 because it's utterly lacking in content, but people dislike when I apply that too liberally.  RasputinAXP  c 03:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Borderline? I think that's so clearly lacking any content as to be laughable. Keep it deleted please. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A1 (insufficient context for expansion). The only possible expansion of this theory would have been as a speculative essay. It would be acceptable on the user's page and perhaps in the Wikipedia-space, but until somone else writes about it in a verifiable, reliable source, it does not belong in the article space. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, according to process, it is A1 (per Rossami). If I want to go beyond process (something pretty rare for me in a DRV discussion), it's also unencyclopedic, POV, crystal ballery, and self-referencing. I'd rather not have Wikipedia wrench its arm out of its socket trying to pat itself on the back, thank you very much. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, perfectly valid A1 speedy. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pat Price

AfD was closed by User:FireFox as a delete. When prompted for further explanation, said that vote counting wasn't taken into effect (although 6 delete/4 keep would normally constitute a "no consensus"), and that the most sensible close was actually delete, even though three of the delete voters noted that there were verifiability issues even though 25 published sources on remote viewing cited him by name, and one delete voter used WP:HOLE as a rationale. Overturn the delete and close as no consensus. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You're referring to the number of votes, even though (I assume you meant) the closer even told you that he'd closed the AfD the Right Way, that is to say, without taking the vote tally into account. It is entirely proper for FireFox to do so, and it makes you look silly to bring it up here, after all the advances you've been making. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just providing all the available information. Noting how many of the people felt delete was correct, and then demonstrating their incorrect rationales for the opinion seems perfectly legitimate in a DRV discussion. I haven't forgotten, don't worry. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No offense to Mark, but I must disagree. I think it's pretty obvious that this AFD didn't come to any sort of consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no need to worry about causing me offence here. I've already said I don't agree with the close. I just don't see what the tally has to do with it, and I don't like the attempts from certain users to spread the misconception that it matters. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. Google Scholar, minus the cancer stuff, turns up a fair number of references to Price. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Johnleemk. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. AfD failed, as did the administrator who deleted it anyway. Sarge Baldy 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• He just made a mistake in good faith. That's what DRV is for. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, looks like a fellow worth having an article about. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, looks like a classic no consensus, before and after the relisting. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others

Others include Abacus Group Literary Agency, Arthur Fleming Associates, Benedict Associates, Capital Literary Agency, Desert Rose Literary Agency, Finesse Literary Agency and Harris Literary Agency. The category Category:SFWA Writer Beware Worst Literary Agents was also speedy deleted along with these, but has since been undeleted.

These articles were speedy deleted as attack pages. I contend that they were not attack pages, primarily on the basis that the information contained in them was verifiable according to the rules at WP:Verifiable. I don't believe stating the verifiable truth is disparaging.

Yes, the majority of things they said about their subjects were negative. But if this were the only criteria for a page being an attack page, then we couldn't have pages like Harold Shipman or any other that deals with a subject for which the only things worth saying really are negative.

Admittedly, the Barbara Bauer article has had some things added to it that weren't sourced. However, the appropriate action would be to remove these comments and find sources for them before restoring them, or to add a {{disputed}} tag. Not to delete the article. JulesH 08:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Just a correction: Category:SFWA Writer Beware Worst Literary Agents wasn' undeleted, it was re-created, by me. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - these agencies don't seem especially notable. Metamagician3000 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest that their inclusion on the list makes them notable. Barbara Bauer at least is notable, if only because of the numerous recent discussions concerning her. It may be best to merge the other articles together into one about the list, but that and the notability of the articles would surely be best dealt with via an AfD discussion after their reinstatement? JulesH 08:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a datum regarding notability; a google test for '"barbara bauer" agent' turnes up 279 unique results; a test for '"donald maass" agent' (one of the most noteworthy literary agents currently trading) turns up 622. JulesH 09:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Barbara Bauer, undecided (as yet) on the rest. The notion that the opinion of a professional organization (the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), the people who bring you the Nebula Award) regarding companies that deal with their peers, counts as "attack pages" stretches the meaning of the speedy-deletion criterion to its breaking point. By that logic -- that any such listing is a priori a speediable attack page -- means you best have a look at the listings at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, since it's a bunch of articles about companies (mostly not institutions, though some pretend to be) that are not what they appear and are listed on various official and unofficial watchlists. POV problems can be fixed: calling these articles speediable is an assertion that they never can be, and that's flatly wrong, especially with regard to the recent notoriety of Bauer. She's at least borderline notable, not speedy material. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - do you think perhaps it would be more appropriate to create a single page concerning the rest, rather than undeleting the individual pages I created? Then, as and when these agencies rise to further prominence, like Bauer's did, individual articles could be spun off from that page. JulesH 09:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• No vote on Barbara Bauer because it is already in AfD, Endorse deletion (or list on AfD) on the rest. These organisations seem like valid A6es (attack pages), these articles should be written to be more neutral in tone. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Brian Peppers

Extended, ongoing discussion was taking place at this talk page, regarding an article Jimbo had deleted and protected back in February. The discussion included a fairly considerable number of users and diversity of views, many strongly felt. User:Tony Sidaway, however, recently decided that the discussion should not be taking place and chose to delete and protect the talk page as well. I propose that this was wrong of him and the talk page should be restored. Everyking 07:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Jimbo asked us to give it a rest for a while, and I propose the deletion of the talk page as the only way to give us a proper chance of coming back to the issue with fresh eyes in a year or two's time. --Tony Sidaway 07:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony Sidaway 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Comment It seems that Geni has boldly restored this talk page.
    • 08:45, 28 May 2006 Geni restored "Talk:Brian Peppers" (restoing public record pluss index of archives)

  You want discussion to stop? Protect it. Myself I'd rather we had a place to keep track of any developments (such as say it.wikipedia).Geni 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - common sense in the circs. Metamagician3000 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Please provide evidence or a logical basis for your claim.Geni 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - After the years up, restart the conversation. No meaningful conversation was taking place. The purpose of the original article deletion was to spend time/resources on other things for the year. --Rob 08:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To me, all the conversation seemed meaningful. Everyking 09:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony. The whole point of giving the Peppers issue a year's rest was to allow us to come at it with fresh eyes next year. If we spend the intervening time sitting around the talkpage discussing what we're going to write when the suspension period ends, we may as well not have bothered placing that period there in the first place. Now, there are those who would very much like that to be the case — but they're out of luck. There will not be an article mocking Brian Peppers until the year is up, at which point we're supposed to be able to look at the need for it with a fresh perspective. We can't do that as long as people are discussing the potential article on its talkpage. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  No. According to jimbo the reason was recreation of previously deleted material or "We can live without this until 21 February 2007". Can't find where he talked about fresh eyes. Oh and If I'm around in a year there will not be an article "mocking Brian Peppers". There may be a NPOV sourced article covering the meme. we will have to see.Geni 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. I don't see why the conversation wasn't meaningful. I also don't see how attempting to forbid discussion on the issue is supposed to help make a better encyclopedia. If you feel you need a "fresh look" at the article, for whatever reason, please feel free to not look at the Talk page until February. Enforcing a "fresh look" seems like a fairly futile and counterproductive thing to do. --Ashenai 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) --Ashenai 12:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Tony Sidaway did the right thing. I read some of that discussion, and not only did it seem to me not to be terribly productive, but it was also rather polarizing. Too many people seemed to be engaging in grandstanding and posturing. The cries of "censorship" were particularly unnattractive and extremist. All this over an article about a particularly ugly sex offender? Aren't there better things to do in Wikipedia? Erik the Rude 14:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  We've been through this (sometime during one of the more intense parts of the deletionist/inclusionist wars) we can't force people to do things on wikipedia.Geni 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  We're being told that our views, despite being made rationally and without any attempt to spill outside of the confines of that tall page, are not welcome. If a person can't make the connection here, then when? --Bobak 17:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, although I don't have any doubt that Tony was trying to do the right thing here. The most telling part for me is that Jimbo, who stepped in on the article, didn't do anything to the talk page. If it was meant to not be discussed, why wouldn't he have done so then? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (although seems to be restored). Tony is clearly one of the best admins here. However, I don't think it was necessary to remove this talk page nor do I see any policy basis for deletion. More discussion is good and should be encouraged. In any case, what's wrong with MFD?-- JJay 14:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like User:Geni restored it. It remains protected, though. Everyking 14:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Give it a rest means stop discussing it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  where did jimbo use the term "give it a rest"?Geni 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  I've just look at his deletion summary. The wording is: "We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it". I take this as meaning on 21 February, 2007 we can discuss whether to recreate. And a rather heavy hint that it won't be recreated. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Nothing saying we can't disscuss it now. Nothing saying give it a rest.Geni 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Give it a rest. Happy now?--Tony Sidaway 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Why?Geni 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build a free encyclopedia, not to adhere to some absolute view of purity-of-Wikihood. Let's not go off on some overdramatized "and when they came for Brian Peppers, I said nothing" tangent. Let's find some other trivia to fight about. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  So what is your actual argument for keeping it deleted? At present you appear to be attacking a strawman.Geni 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • First, your comment is accurate. Second, the reason for my vote, not constituting "an argument," is that my personal judgement is that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to keep it deleted, per WP:IAR. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If there is a problem here it is that the deletion was only carried out now. The talk pages of deleted articles are deleted—we have a speedy deletion criterion for it, G8, a perfectly legitimate policy. They are only left untouched in a small number of old cases, where AFD discussion took place on the article talk page (the former custom in Wikipedia was that AFDs were held on the nominated articles' talk pages; to maintain a record of these old deletion discussions which lack dedicated AFD subpages, the talk pages were not deleted along with the articles, as is the normal practice). The deletion discussions for the unfortunate Peppers page, however, are all perfectly amply recorded in the numerous AFD pages and the DRV logs. There is no good reason for the page to be restored. —Encephalon 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. How was the conversation not constructive? While there were certainly different positions, there was no loss of civility. People are noticing this odd year-long-deletion of Peppers' article, and it's not surprising that they want to discuss it --the ability to discuss it lets people know that they're not marginalized because they share a view that's not share by those in power (especially when it's certainly rationale, if not the right choice). The people advocating for its recreation (in the year) are not mere anons or low-watt editors. We're people who sincerely believe that there is an article that can be written (or moved to within another article) and that the arguments that are being tossed back at us (as clearly illustrated in the talk page) are dubious. I believe in the Wikipedia project, but not this: Obviously Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I at least thought the people were allowed to speak so long as they are not harming anything in the project. Where is the harm here? Is there a problem that some of us would like to dissent from this action? Does it embarrass you that there are others out there who are pointing to this oddly handled page to say "look, another fubar (1 out of over 1 million non-fubars, mind you)"? The person who added the speedy-delete tag was an ANON user [21]. I know that, by itself, that is not suspicious --but the fact that there has been a passionate argument on both sides makes me curious why, all of a sudden, a traceless anon decides to speedy delete the talk page and now we're here. This isn't what the project is about: odd antics to suppress those of us that want to better the project but find ourselves in the minority. We're following the rules, but now we're tolding that's not good enough. We're being told that our views are embarassing the rest of you and thus we should be quieted. We are being pushed beyond marginalization, we are being suppressed for advocating views that are not agreeing that whatever is done is the best way. I am not going to draw comparisons to any real world political situations, but the comparison just sits there ready to be made. Let's not push Wikipedia past that point, please? A lot of us believe in the project, but the way this talk page is being handled is just crushing. --Bobak 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  I didn't delete the talk page in response to a speedy tag. That had been removed by the time I got there. I deleted the talk page because discussion was still continuing three months after the article had been deleted with a suggestion that we give it a rest for twelve months. Moreover, anon IPs are permitted to add speedy tags. The tagging was quite in order. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Er... you deleted a talk page because there was discussion on it? I'm sorry, but I find this wildly inappropriate, especially considering that there was a discussion on the talk page itself about whether it should be deleted, and there was a strong majority in favour of keeping it. --Ashenai 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Was there some reason that this couldn't have gone through MfD first if it needed to be deleted? In fact, although I rarely disagree with Encephalon, we often leave the talk page in place when we protect a deleted page. There may not have been much meaningful discussion, but clearly there was discussion going on. If it was felt that that was harmful, blanking and protecting would have been a more conservative option. Failing that, again MfD. No reason for this. Restore except of course that is already is. - brenneman ^{L} 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Jimbo. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  "Recreation of previously deleted material" makes no sense at all in this case.Geni 17:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted so we can for pity's sake all forget about it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 18:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  I can't think of any logical biological mechanism by which deletion should aid forgetting. Take it off your watchlist.Geni 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  It isn't on my watchlist. However, it keeps on cropping up over and over again all around Wikipedia because for some unfathomable reason some Wikipedians won't let it go. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  It turns up from time to time in certian polical areas but it had been pretty quiet lately. Oh it might have been going to get a minor resurection over the it.wikipedia issue but deleting the talk page won't do anything about that.Geni 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Nasty stuff Fred Bauder 18:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  In what sense? can you justify your claim?Geni 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete and keep it that way, as much meaningful discussion was and should continue to take place there. "Per Jimbo" is a misnomer. Silensor 18:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There was an ongoing discussion on whether it should be deleted under G8, and so far there's a "keep" consensus. Will (^E_@) T 19:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. The ongoing discussion on the page is a sign that people rae not 'giving it a rest'. The Land 19:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Bloody hell, undelete. Undelete the article too. --SPUI (T - C) 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (or keep undeleted to be precise). Geni has a good point: Jimbo said nothing of discussing about the article. In fact, deleting the page will prevent any constructive discussion to emerge with the aim of creating a well sourced, NPOV article. And we better have a good idea for one when 21st of February 2007. Misza13 ^{T C} 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it Seem clear to me that he wants us to step away from the article for a while. That'll be hard to do with that edit button sitting there...Rx StrangeLove 20:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I find it very easy. Again would protection not have the same effect?Geni 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone has your self control...but the problem is that the more people that are interested in a talk page the higher the likelyhood of someone at some point editing the page. And the group that's interested in this talk page is quite large, there's almost zero chance that this page could go a year (or whatevers left of the year) without someone editing it. And once one person says something, someone else will respond and then it's off to the races. The only way to keep it from being edited is for it not to exist. The same for protection, there are some pretty itchy fingers out there, how long would it be before someone ran right through that stopsign or unprotected it all together, especially as the year started winding down. Rx StrangeLove 07:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest undelete possible Should have at least gone through MfD. Your "Interpretation" of Jimbo's actions doesn't make sense. If Jimbo wanted the talk page deleted he would have deleted it himself, no? VegaDark 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as the talk page of a non-existent article. Then ignore it until February; we spend far too much time on Wikipedia arguing about stupid things that don't matter, because so many of our editors take so much pride in being right all the time. Both sides should think about why you're arguing, and see if your time might not be better spent. (It is prideful of me even to vote on this, but at least I will go back to ignoring this subject after this one comment.) -- SCZenz 20:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted/redelete. I am always extremely suspicious of deletions under WP:IAR but this time it was an appropriate use. This entire debate about the article was inappropriate. Regardless of whatever wikilawyering you want to try to apply to Jimbo's words, the continuation of the article on the talk page clearly violated the spirit of Jimbo's request. He clearly wanted us to walk away from this whole dispute for a while. Kill it, protect it and leave it dead. Unprotect it in when the year runs out and start the discussion then. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  On what basis do you claim that this will prevent further debate? More likely t will result in debate in places where it is harder to ignore. In any case would just striaghtforward protection have the same effect?Geni 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. In view of the pretty strong endorsement for my deletion, I think it's inappopriate to leave the page in its undeleted state. I have accordingly deleted it again. Please be aware that I am under administrator "one revert rule"[22] and will not delete the page if it is restored again. --Tony Sidaway 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Talk:Brian Peppers#Deletion_of_this_page suggests there is no such consensus. I think we can wait for the weekday crowd before considering deletion. Or takeing this through MFD in the normal manner.Geni 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete deleting talk pages is pointless.  Grue  21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete now that it's deleted again, I can't even see what the previous discussion was. I say undelete because you are trying to interpret Jimbo's words and not just listen to what they said. Also, Tony, a strong endorsement does not indicate consensus. As I count it, including my support, there are 15 users (aside from yourself) who say delete and 12 who say keep. That is certainly not consensus, and after you saw the opposing argument for deletion here, it was inappropriate to not put this through MFD. Until this does go through MfD, please put the talk page back (maybe protected if you want), so that others can see the discussion there and consider that when deciding what should happen. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. You don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it. But we haven't appointed you arbiter of what other people can talk about. It's time Tony Sidaway stopped abusing his tool to impose his views of what is proper for this encyclopaedia on other editors. Grace Note 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (or keep undeleted) there was no need to remove these discussions. Yamaguchi先生 04:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (or delete and protect). An article -- if any -- isn't going to appear until 2007, so any talk page discussion before then is pointless wankery which violates the very notion of "starting fresh": "starting stale", would be a better description. --Calton | Talk 06:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I really argued for the keeping of Brian Peppers, but once Jimbo deleted it, he made it policy (and set a possible future date for re-creation). As such, the article was validly deleted. It also makes the talk page a valid CSD candidate as a G8 (talk pages for articles that do not exist). --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion If the point is to let it go for a year, it really doesn't help to maintain a Brian Peppers discussion board. Let's leave the guy alone for a while; there are so many other articles to think about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  Except those that are "inconvenient", apparently. --Bobak 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  What does that even mean? I'm saying let's let it go for a year, as was suggested. What are you talking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - discussion pages are only justifiable where they are about articles.Timothy Usher 16:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I normally would not be for deletion of a talk page. However, there were five pages of discussion here - for those doing the math, that's about two pages of discussion for every sentence that would actually go into the article if it were created. Numerous hot-button political issues and figures don't even have three-page talk sections on Wikipedia, which is a sign there's something wrong with this discussion. This is because neither side was trying to make headway in understanding the other, and it's pretty clear that the "keep" side was using the old Internet debate tactic of "Last Man Standing" (ignore, confound, and misrepresent your opponent until he quits in frustration, then declare victory). I'd have to say my favorite argument in the discussion was "Why do we have a page on Adolf Hitler but not Brian Peppers? I mean, all Adolf Hitler did was drop out of art school!"...and, sadly, I didn't take too much liberty with that. And then there's the inevitable army of YTMND kids posting "WTF NO BRIAN PEPPERS PAGE OMG FASCISTS" from, of course, unsigned IP addresses. I predict that, come February 2007, the page will be created, again, somebody will vandalize it, again, it will be reverted and huge arguments will show up on the talk page on why one of the article's three sentences shouldn't be there, again, it will be VfD'd, again, the losing side will whine and cry about not getting their way, again, and go to Wikitruth. I love Wikipedia and I think it's a great resource, but Brian Peppers bears witness to one of the reasons Wikipedia's detractors will always give for why an online, (mostly) freely-editable encyclopedia shouldn't work. Thunderbunny 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I do not see any harm in keeping it and I generally like to err on the side of keeping talk pages. Rjm656s 20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Let's give it a rest for awhile. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. While I am against the restoration of the article, (I've said many a time it should be redirected), I should mention that deleting this page comes into conflict with WP:NOT censored, WP:POINT, and WP:RD. WP:FREE does not apply to talk pages, and it is not policy or guideline. Although there was a lack of consensus to keep or delete the article, there is a clear consensus to keep the talk page. I really don't think it's appropriate for people to twist Jimbo's words to suit their own agendas. Must I remind people that WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and consensus and process are what run Wikipedia? Crazyswordsman 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. WP:CSD G8. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, then cauterize the wound with fire. Nandesuka 11:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

that is not a valid basis for deleteion.Geni 13:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

27 May 2006

The Juggernaut Bitch

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (again)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Juggernaut Bitch

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1532557/05252006/story.jhtml

Kept via AfD, nominated again two weeks later, deleted. Okay, fine. The problem, as it stands now? X-Men: The Last Stand, which came out in theaters on Friday and immediately made $45 million dollars, second only to Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. What happens in this movie? Why, Juggernaut actually makes mention of this meme, screaming "Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" not only is the meme referenced in a blockbuster movie, now, but Fox News saw it fit to note it as well, as evidenced by this video: [23]. Not that there was much in the way of serious question of its notability before, this pretty much cements it. If it's good enough for a popular action movie...

EDIT: I see it's been recreated, which could get dicey, but process is important in this case. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: As of Sunday afternoon, 28 May EST, MTV also noted the link between the meme and the movie [24] --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have any evidence -- other than a single line of dialogue -- that connects this to the X-Men movie? And the point of the box office totals is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I don't. What else do you possibly think it would be referencing? It's fairly self-evident. As for the point of the box office totals, it's to demonstrate that a LOT of people are seeing this movie. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What else do you possibly think it would be referencing? How about "nothing whatsoever"? Which was, you know, the entire point of the question. Which you have answered, in a way, so Keep deleted/Delete and protect against recreation. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • so the meme doesn't exist? The movie just happened to throw that line in there independent of anything else? You're joking, right? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? Why do fools fall in love? Who, who wrote the Book of Love? I'm sorry, isn't this the "empty rhetorical question" topic? Any time you want to actually offer actual evidence of your actual claim, that there's a verifiable connection between this so-called meme and its specific use in the movie, though, I'm all ears. Vigorous handwaving and empty sputtering? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, it wasn't an empty rhetorical question. If you can't see what's in front of you on this one, there's not much else I can say. The evidence is there if you want to look at it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
            • No, it's precisely an empty question, since it has no content, an intentional distraction from the fact you haven't provided a scintilla of a shred of a shadow of an iota of evidence connecting the so-called meme with its use in the movie. Last time I checked, Wikipedia was a fact-based encyclopedia: your faith-based editing runs afoul of basic Wikipedia principles. And it seems odd for you to be so hung-up on policy regarding the exact timing of AfDs and yet constantly ignoring the more fundamental WP:Cite and WP:Verify policies: is it that you find them inconvenient? --Calton | Talk 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Not at all. The verification is there, the third party verification is there. If the evidence isn't going to sway you, nothing will, and I can accept that, but you could certainly be nicer about it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                • If the evidence isn't going to sway you, nothing will The moment you provide a shred of it, it will. Hint: an MTV story that merely repeats the claim without backing means you've merely pushed your empty handwaving back a level. Do find concepts like "proof" and "evidence" to be too archaic and inconvenient for your ideal faith-based encyclopedia? --Calton | Talk 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
            • It's certainly not unthinkable that those two words should appear in that order without it being an intentional reference. I find it quite natural, when I've just used the word "Juggernaut", to follow it with "bitch", and I didn't know there was such a meme. Ever hear of parallel evolution, or like when Newton and Leibniz both invented calculus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Is it possible? Of course. Is it almost an absurd reach? I think so. To think one of the more notable memes didn't get put in the eyes and ears of the creators of the film is almost too much to think logically about. BTW, more news stories added to the top. It's like saying Buffy the Vampire Slayer referenced Trogdor the Burninator without ever seeing Strongbad. [25] --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Or, maybe, it's just a coincidental line of dialogue with no relevance to this at all. Fan1967 02:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• The facts as described sound too "current-event" flavored for me. It's wonderful that WP is able to be up-to-date in important matters, but on questions of borderline notability, "This got mentioned once on FOX News this week!" is not compelling evidence, to my mind. We should wait to see if a trend develops. It's fine for WP to catalog major internet memes, but I think it bad for encyclopedia integrity if WP begins to promote minor memes, giving undue attention. I'm worried this case is of the latter variety. It is too soon to assess well the term's notability increase, if any, from this single mention. Xoloz 02:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As well as the fact that the exact line, word-for-word, appeared in an X-men TV episode to begin with, long before The Juggernaut Bitch. Maybe they're just reusing the line because it's in character for the Juggernaut to say. Fan1967 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that this is continually characterized as a minor meme. It's not, and the idea that this is coincedental is really rather silly. I don't understand what more people are looking for at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But the article isn't about the meme. It's about a short film. Fan1967 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• The author even acknowledges the article was "gone" so he copied back the answers.com version. I don't think it's worth keeping anyway, but it's clearly recreated content.· rodii ·
  • Nonsense, the article is about the meme and the video, as any article should, as most articles on Internet phenomenon are 72.145.155.253 15:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What part of what I wrote is nonsense? If you really mean "I disagree", try saying it in a more civil way. Also try writing coherently. · rodii · 21:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• In my judgment, this is a substantially identical copy of the deleted content -- I have speedied via G4 and protected. Of course, as the nomination proceeds, this matter may evolve. Xoloz 03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Even on the small chance that the mention exists and isn't merely coincidental, that still wouldn't be enough. It's one line of dialogue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What, exactly, do you need? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actual proof or evidence might be a start, as opposed to "firm belief". --Calton | Talk 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"
• Undelete. per first AfD. Shaun Eccles-Smith 03:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC).
• Undelete per badlydrawnjeff and first AfD. StarNeptune
• Undelete, valid Internet phenomenon with a pretty clear reference in a massively successful movie. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And your evidence that the two things have the slightest connection is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per badlydrawnjeff and first AfD. Ash Lux 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - This is a particularly notable meme, I saw the movie and that came back to mind. Mineralè 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And the evidence for a connection between the two is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I saw the juggernaut bitch vid at a friends house, and we saw the movie together as well. That line is a clear connection between the two; I *highly* doubt the two were coincidental. Even the voice inflections in the movie are similar to that in the Juggernaut Bitch video. Undelete this article, and keep it. -Chewbacca 05:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And your evidence that the two things have the slightest connection is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think Fan-1967 hit the nail on the head; the movie has most likely re-used lines from previous TV shows (or the original comics) that are "catchphrases" for the characters. I don't think that really bolsters the notability of the meme (though it makes it a little funnier to watch the movie having seen the "Juggernaut Bitch" video). Though I acknowledge that it's a popular meme, I'm still not convinced it merits its own article. Maybe we get some expert advice from this guy? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen every part of X-Men television, but I highly, highly doubt that "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch" aired over a television station for a superhero cartoon. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen the movie yet, but does he actually say "bitch" in the movie? (In the Fox News clip, he simply says "Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut," so either he doesn't say "bitch" or Fox chopped it. I still find it highly unlikely that the quote was included in the movie as a nod to the meme. (Though such things do occasionally happen, such as with Snakes on a Plane. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete this was obviously important enough to be included in the movie, so why should there not be something on wikipedia, a juggernaut (hah) of information. Skhatri2005 08:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And your evidence that the two things have the slightest connection is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above.  Grue  08:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: How is your pet rock doing? How about your mood ring? Say "Where's the beef?" often? Wikipedia is not a web guide. It is not the Jargon File. It is not a news site. If the meme is going gangbusters, it doesn't need Wikipedia, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic in any sense. Geogre 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You do of course realize that pet rock, mood ring, and Where's the beef? all have articles on Wikipedia? --Ashenai 15:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. New information such as this can make the article even better. Thanks to nom for bringing this to our attention. -- JJay 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And what new information would that be? --Calton | Talk 06:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Glad to be of assistance. Start at the top and work your way down. Check the MTV link. Reread the long discussion involving yourself and the nom focused on this very issue. I hope this provides you with a scintilla of a shred of a shadow of an iota of a response to your vigorous handwaving empty sputtering question. --JJay 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. We discussed this less than a week ago. No substantive new information has been presented convincing me that the second AFD decision or the Deletion Review decision should be overturned. Rossami (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So a blockbuster film and news coverage don't constitute "substantive new information?" If I wasn't concerned w/that, I would have brought it back here again sooner. I only saw the clip last night, it's brand new. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This was not made into a "blockbuster film". It received a casual and ambiguously interpretable mention in such a film. Neither did this get any "news coverage" that I can find cited. MTV Movies is not what I consider "major media". (If there is some other coverage that I've overlooked it, please point it out to me.) Rossami (talk)
      • Whether or not you consider MTV Movies "major media" is irrelevant. A reliable source is a reliable source, and since this has been covered by a reliable source via WP:RS and WP:V, the article should be reinstated. StarNeptune 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I disagree with your conclusion. Not everything on TV is appropriate for the encyclopedia. We are not WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Here's a link to the complete video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/v/4TCFyiB8Vzo -- 72.145.155.253 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete in light of recent events. Silensor 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This was featured on MTV Movies: http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1532557/05252006/story.jhtml

A Bitchin' Shout-Out — In one scene, the unstoppable Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones) bashes through wall after wall, until a naive Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) slows him down by sinking him into the floor. The angry mutant declares, "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" and then continues on his quest, but the brief line sticks out glaringly in an otherwise vulgarity-free film. "When that line comes up, I'm probably going to start breakdancing, and Randy will scream out the phrase himself," 21-year-old college student Xavier Nazario said excitedly, thrilled over the prospect of watching Jones utter the line made popular by an Internet spoof Nazario released last February. Using an old "X-Men" cartoon, Nazario and pal Randy Hayes dubbed their voices in, giving birth to the now-famous catchphrase. Hayes, who voiced Juggernaut's ghetto persona in the top-rated YouTube.com clip, isn't quite so shocked that Ratner paid tribute to the clip. "Everybody loves the Juggernaut," he laughed.

...emphasis mine 72.145.155.253 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, nn meme/amateur film, proper AfD. Trying to overturn an AfD on the grounds that the first one was valid but the second one isn't is, um, invalid. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to overturn a deletion based on new information that has come about following the otherwise valid closure. At no time did i disparage the second AfD as invalid in this argument, although I am trying to get some sort of policy in place over at Wikipedia:Speedy keep to refrain from the constant AfDing of consensus keeps. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete despite the video sucking shit, due to new "notability". Maybe it should be merged with X-Men 3, but that's not for us to decide (bindingly) here. --SPUI (T - C) 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, as it was a valid AfD, but allow recreation after recent events showing how notable this meme really is. If you want to take this as an Undelete I don't have a problem with that, I just think we should respect valid AfD's. VegaDark 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep in mind that people did not 'respect' the first AfD -- and it survived the first. So people renominated it again. 70.197.45.213 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I feel an admin should have closed the second as a speedy keep with the last AfD having been only 2 weeks prior, nominating again so soon doesn't make much sense...I still feel the result of the second should be respected (although I would have voted keep), but certainly allow recreation now that he actually said it in the film. VegaDark 07:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Per 72.145.155.253 (talk · contribs)'s MTV link above, it seems as if perhaps Ratner did include the line as an homage. Given the popularity of the movie (and the silly video), I'm going to have to change my vote. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Producer of the video believes that the movie line was an homage to him. Not exactly an objective observer. Fan1967 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete for the usual reasons. Grace Note 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Some anon refactored this debate into "discussion" and "vote" sections. I have reverted because such things are an anathema in my mind. Kotepho 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted With the sources provided this seems like it could use a mention in the movie's article, but we are still a long way from sourcing the article from secondary sources and I do not believe that the encyclopedia derives enough benefit from this article to allow it to be sourced by the video itself. Kotepho 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete this appears to be notable now. Yamaguchi先生 04:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelte Mention on fox and mtv makes this notable. JoshuaZ 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete in light of greater notability. -- nae'blis _(talk) 08:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. An inside joke in a movie isn't justification for the creation of an entire article. WarpstarRider 09:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Per first AfD. Notable Internet meme, now even more notable thanks to X3. Bastun 11:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. For an additional, documented example of filmmakers reshooting a scene to include "fancruft" (the most ridiculous word on Wikipedia), please see Snakes on a Plane. This was meant for the fans of the parody, if you can't see it, then you're trying too hard to legitimize earlier actions. --Bobak 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• I can't believe people are actually arguing this shit. Undelete the damn thing. Cassandra Leo 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete This is an obvious reference to the fan movie and as someone else said, many other pop culture notorietys have Wiki entries.
• Admin Action - I've undeleted this for now as it seems to be more than a handful of undelete requests, it is currently under another AfD so please take discussion there -- Tawker 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  As I couldn't find the AFD Tawker is talking about, I've opened one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (3rd nomination). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  I spoke to tawker on irc, he simply got confused over the afd... the article can't be here and on afd at the same time Mineralè 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  I have closed the AfD. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Please keep discussing here, the article has been brought back only to facilitate discussion, if consensus here is reached to keep the article deleted, it will be deleted, otherwise it will be kept. But we are voting to bring back an article already restored? -- yep that's correct but the restoration is only temporary and only because there is preliminary consensus to bring it back. Think of it as a temporary injunction, the movie is hot off the theaters right now and people are interested in the subject matter. Mineralè 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Recall that the purpose of DRV is not ti "refight" the deletion, it's only for decide wether the AFD was valid or not. Those having concerns about the AFD being closed incorrectly can give arguments here. That's what DRV is about.' -- Drini 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

South Coast League

Why was this article South Coast League deleted. It seems that InShaneee has his or her own agenda and opinion when deleting articles instead of using objectivity. Please undelete this article as it is a future baseball league. Their website is [26]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnoxSGT (talk • contribs) moved from the Talk page

• Undelete, looks like a league similar to the Can-Am League, not sure why it was ever deleted in the first place. i've seen the article, it was a non-notable stub. A7 would apply, sadly, so Endorse. Sorry Inshanee. --21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted until the league exists, fields teams, has competitions, and attracts fans (particularly the latter). Wikipedia is explanatory, not advertising, and until there are fans, there is no one to explain to. Geogre 11:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The league exists and fields teams. The competition begins very shortly. Did you feel that World Baseball Classic was created prematurely in May of 2005? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that you ask, yes. Encyclopedias are not news sources. They are not speculative. Should there have been an article in someone's user space? Maybe. However, until the thing happens, there is no there there. There is nothing in existence. Again, though, the bottom line is the function of an encyclopedia: it is not to announce. It is to explain, to document history, to draw upon secondary sources only to create a tertiary and critical summary. Anything that hasn't played a game yet is out. Geogre 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • And if that can be done through an examination of a future event...? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh? There are secondary sources already discussing the history of the thing, the execution of the thing, and the effects of the thing? That is amazing. Encyclopedias don't announce things. Anyone who thinks that advertising on Wikipedia is a good idea is already failing at business, music, and art, and anyone who thinks that Wikipedia is the place to announce their new accomplishment or event is abusing us and achieving nothing. Let it have some effects to measure before we proclaim those effects sufficient for an encyclopedia. Geogre 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• It probably wasn't speedy-deletion material but it definitely should have been deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As Geogre says, we are a tertiary source. We are not WikiNews. We have no need to scoop anyone. We can (and per WP:V, must) wait. Keep deleted. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted For the record, I speedied this as a nn-group, no content, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --InShaneee 19:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So the challenge of the speedy is invalid? If I recreate it with sources and content and isn't a G1, it ceases being a problem? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It doesn't matter much to me if we keep the current version of the article or not, but certainly there's no reason it can't be recreated with sources, if there are sources. Just because something hasn't happen yet, it doesn't mean that saying it's planned is unverifiable. -- SCZenz 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If verification were the only concern, we'd not be an encyclopedia. We are supposed to serve the curious, not the organizer. When we have something that needs explanation, we can explain it, by reference. Until then, being true isn't all that's required. Geogre 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're saying that the article violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, then verifiability is the issue; that's why we don't have speculation about the future. If the group is non-notable, that is a different matter. -- SCZenz 07:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm saying that it does not make claims for notability because it can't because it doesn't exist. I.e. my objections over future articles are that we can't be sure that the thing will happen, that a meteor won't hit while they occur, that anyone will show up, that anyone will watch, etc. They violate all of the criteria. We can affirm that they're planned, but that's only part of one requirement, as an article needs to be verifiable and significant. Until it happens, we can only speculate that it will be significant, and that would include major events like the World Baseball Classic or the 2012 Summer Olympic Games -- it's virtually certain that they'll be significant, but it's not at all certain in what way they will achieve significance, and that's why we write exclusively after the fact. Geogre 12:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Other side of the pillow

Out of process delete by User:FireFox, who arbitrarily decided that an AfD up for less than a day and wrongly described as a G1 candidate (the article was not patent nonsense, yet was described as such by 7 of the 15 delete voters) repeatedly constituted consensus to ignore process. At the very least, the AfD should be allowed to run its course, allowing for an actual discussion about the policies governing such things to be completed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted AfD at time of closure was 16-to-1 to delete, with several of those calling for a speedy. Unlikely in the extreme that it would have resulted in a keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Relevance? The article did not meet a single speedy criteria, and there is nothing in policy allowing for a speedy close such as this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfD. Article cited no sources at all. Reconsider if someone presents convincing citations from a reliable source showing that "it has become a popular catch phrase" as the article states. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that it was on AfD for less than a day, not much was given to allow for such sources to be found. Also, was not a valid AfD, as it was closed early and improperly. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would not have speedied it myself, nor closed the AfD early, but I think undeleting it merely so it can be deleted again in a couple of days would be unconscionable process wonkery (an ideology that has no place on this encyclopaedia). So, keep deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do not endorse deletion, keep deleted anyway. No need to close this early, even less need to reopen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 05:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - early closure well within reasonable admin discretion. Metamagician3000 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • According to what? Serious question. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I read the entry, and it wasn't an encyclopedia article even by WP standards. There's no reason bickering over something of such questionable quality. Any mention of this catchphrase should be included in the article on the guy who uses it. Erik the Rude 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• It was clearly inappropriate to close this discussion early. Doing so has already wasted more time and effort than if we'd let the discussion run its course. However, it would also be pointless to reopen the discussion just to delete it in a few days. Censure FireFox for failing to follow the process but leave it deleted. Rossami (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - An admin using common sense to close a deletion, like OMG! I saw the AFD and the article when it was still running, and the article was not good or worthy of an encyclopedia. It seems to be taken from a Prince live track or something, so maybe redirect it to the album title or something. - Hahnchen 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per precendent of early closings when consensus is clear/article is hopeless. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Joel Leyden

I'm a relatively uninvolved party, and it seems that the article was deleted out of process with the community having voted in favor of keeping it a few months before. It was written by the subject of the article, and so probably violates Wikipedia:Original Research and Wikipedia:Autobiography, but if it's recreated and relisted for deletion, this can probably be fixed by taking out most of it and reconfirming everything from the bottom up. I've compiled an article from what information can be found outside his website, excepting the information that he is the author of Israel News Agency, which I can't find at any website outside his own other than the Embassy of Israel in San Francisco, which regularly references his work. Daniel Bush 21:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Joel Leyden is an Israeli public relations consultant and the publisher of the Israel News Agency, which purports to be the first online news publication in Israel. According to CNN, he has once worked as a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces with the rank of captain. According to The Jurusalem Post, he is also a specialist in communications based in Ra'anana."Anglos on-line". The Jerusalem Post. April 20, 2006.</ref>

• Overturn with no objection to a relisting, although it shouldn't be necessary. Keep AfD is here, and the deletion seems to be completely out of process, especially given the concensus keep by the community at large. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (see a related review) I'll basically steal my comment from Danny's talk page. Is the Israel News Agency more than a blog? Is he a search engine spammer? I do not know, but it certainly does not seem fit to say that it is his only claim to fame.
  • Joel Leyden was behind netking.com Rovner, Sandy (1995-11-09). "Mourning by Modem for Rabin". The Washington Post. which has 16 mentions in newspapers including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The San Francisco Chronicle
  • Taylor, Catherine (2002-04-23). "Palestinian schools hit hard by conflict - Older students in the West Bank headed back to school yesterday, to begin cleaning up battle damage". Christian Science Monitor. quotes him as a Captain and spokesman for the Israeli Defense Force
  • Rover, Sandy (1996-03-07). "A Flash of Screwy Logic". The Washington Post. mentions his "internet consulting and advertising company" opening the Israeli Terror Victims Hotline page, http://shani.net/terror, which also has mentions in The Chicago Sun-Times and The Star Tribune
  • Again quoted as a spokesman and captain for the IDF in Chivers, C.J. (2002-04-27). "Mideast Turmoil: Bethlehem - Israel's Threat of an Attack on a Church is Pulled Back". The New York Times.; Lev, Michael (2002-04-27). "Israelis hunt militants in new West Bank raid - Bush urges end to incursions". Chicago Tribune.; "Children to be released from Church of the Nativity". CNN. 2002-04-24.
  • An article from The Register that mentions him and uses Israeli News Agency as a source

Kotepho 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• It was deleted by user:Danny as a "vanity page posted by banned user". The primary contributor, user:Israelbeach, has indeed been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. That decision was endorsed by two other admins who found it necessary to protect the page from recreation. The speedy-deletion criterion would certainly seem to apply and, if upheld, supercedes the AFD discussion.
  Personally, I am going to endorse the deletion regardless of the concerns about the banned user. I see nothing in any version of the article suggesting that this person meets our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Rossami (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The CSD applies to pages created by a banned user while they are banned. Since Israelbeach is not a sockpuppet of some other banned user, they could not have made the page and have been banned at the same time. Kotepho 17:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I suggest that if the subject is determined to be notable, a new article be started rather than continuing with the self-promotion of the deleted article. I suspect it would get filled up again by Joel's cadre of meat- and sockpuppets, but I guess that's always the chance we take when we have an article on a self-promoter. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete per the useful comments made by Kotepho. Silensor 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Articles should not be deleted as an extension of a wikisquabble. It's curious that supporters of Mr Leyden are considered "meatpuppets" but supporters of the other party involved are not. Grace Note 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

sharting

Google gets over 30,000 results for sharting. It's a notable concept and should not have been deleted. It should be undeleted. 24.127.224.173 18:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• The AfD resulted in delete. Was there something wrong with the procedure for AfD? Deletion review isn't just AfD2:The Sequel. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an undeletion request. Did I send it to the wrong place? Is there a different place for undeletion requests? 24.127.224.173 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Was there a problem with the AfD? Is there evidence that was not considered? Were there improprieties in how it was conducted? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, it was closed early and improperly. Undelete and relist. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it sorta is. DRV exists to determine if a problem was made in deleting an article, not merely to determine if process was followed. Process can be followed and still give us the wrong result; in such cases, it would be idiocy in its purest form to say "keep this good article deleted, process was followed". Fortunately, the article in question this time 'round is not a good article, but is instead an excellent example of when out-of-process deletion is a Good Thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I sure hope DRV is AFD: The Sequel, because if AFD goes in favor of keeping you can relist as many times as you like to get it deleted. If it goes in favor of delete, you're saying that it can't be relisted ever if process was followed, which results in an unreasonable ratchet effect. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Shart has been deleted 9 times already; the afd closed early because it was a speedy-able as a repost. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Without knowing the rationale for the deletion in the first place, it's impossible to derive whether the speedy was proper, for one. For another, it's noted in the AfD that the article in the form referred to was vastly different than the one speedied the first times, thus NOT making it a G4 candidate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. More User:Science3456 disruption. Don't waste your time with this badlydrawnjeff. —Ruud 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It may, in fact, be so, but this appears to also be an out of process delete, and that's just as much a problem as any sort of disruption a user may be causing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • R.Koot has made a mistake, as my IP address is not a sockpuppet of User:Science3456. I've left a note on the user page. MSN360 22:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This article is a textbook case of the sort of thing we do not want on Wikipedia. I can only assume that, with the exception of our earnest but misguided friend with the naked IP address, the people arguing for undeletion have not actually seen the article. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of this piece of ... stuff. Metamagician3000 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and, once past the giggle stage, what is there to do? Geogre 11:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but not the reason given. This "article" had no redeeming value to the encyclopedia. It was first speedy-deleted as a "vandalism" contribution. That was arguable but would have been my opinion as well. It was re-deleted as "reposted content". That speedy-deletion was in error. The repost criterion may not be used when the only prior deletions have been speedy-deletions. It can be speedied again under the original criterion but the repost criterion only applies to AFD'd content. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article was a dicdef of a neologism; it belonged on Wiktionary if it belonged anywhere. --Metropolitan90 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:user green energy

An opinionated deletion of an informative and inoffensive userbox. This must have annoyed other contributors as well as myself. I suggest this be undeleted and User:MarkGallagher be informed how to not alienate contributors. Elroch 11:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am thrilled at the prospect of my upcoming re-education procedure. I assume the Secret of How Not to Alienate Contributors is not an easy one to discover, or I'd have found it already. Is it some kind of icky-tasting elixir? An intense weekend-long training course complete with electroshock therapy and vicious sack-beatings? I must say I am all a-quiver, wondering what is going to happen. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete: I couldn't see a debate here, so I'm assuming there wasn't one. Userboxes say a lot about the editors who use them. This is no exception. I am aware there is a debate in this area, but this looks like a non-offensive user-box. Stephen B Streater 11:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  No vote: I don't seem to understand enough about this yet to vote, so I'm going to observe a bit longer. Stephen B Streater 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete: I don't currently see much difference between a graphic and a piece of text in user space. I think opinions should be separated from expertise, but this is a bigger debate. Stephen B Streater 09:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Ahhhh... I look forward to the explanation on why this was "T1" as the delete log says. Also, I see he has deleted the communist wikipedian category as well as another religion, and yet the cristian category is as vibrant as ever :).... hmmmmmmm..... RN 12:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  Believe it or not, green energy isn't a slam-dunk-everybody-loves-it cause, even in today's world when nearly everyone accepts the reality of global warming and suchlike. I s'pose if it was, nobody would have bothered making a userbox advocating it. It was a template advocating a potentially inflammatory viewpoint, and in my view fit snugly into T1. If users want userboxen that are useful to the project, there's no reason they can't create neutrally-worded ones: "This user is interested in green energy issues", "This user edits articles related to green energy", "This user is an expert on green energy", whatever.

  I haven't seen the template, so can't comment on the wording. Stephen B Streater 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  T1, as I read it, requires a userbox to be divisive & inflammatory to meet that criterion for deletion. Try as I might, I can't see a lot of weight going toward the idea that this is a divisive & inflammatory template. "This user supports green energy" is a statement that would be hard-pressed to inflame the passions of all but a small minority of people, and who would it divide? "Green energy" is a concept that's wide open to interpretation. I just don't see a strong case for deletion, and especially not for speedy deletion.--Ssbohio 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the position is; userboxes that express support for a political/social/religous position are divisive and thus can be deleted, as far as I, and many others, are concerned.--Sean Black 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Re: the Communist Wikipedian category, yes, I deleted it. I deleted the Socialist one, too. Categories that exist only for vote-stacking should not be used on Wikipedia. I don't remember deleting any religion-related userboxen or categories, and I wouldn't mind a little clarification about what exactly you were implying when you said I hadn't deleted the Christian category. If you want it gone, you're an admin, feel free: I have no objection. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopaedia, and is no more a vehicle for promoting environmental activism than it is for promoting religions or political philosophies. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  So are you in favour of deleting all user boxes? How about promoting white middle class Englishness, for example? Stephen B Streater 12:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  That's not a template. (For the benefit of other users, he's referring to the 'Personal' box on my userpage.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  My mistake then. I seem to have misunderstood what and template:userbox green energy and userboxes 'Personal' boxes are. As I can't see the deleted template either, I'll withdraw my vote until I understand this area better. Stephen B Streater 18:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is a pretty straightforward "T1" deletion of a userbox with a clear polemical purpose. A laudable purpose, I'm sure many will agree, but not a suitable use of template space. If I want the world to know that I support green alternatives to conventional fossil fuels, I'll write something to that end on my Wikipedia userpage, or perhaps on my blog. --Tony Sidaway 12:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Or you could add a neutrally worded user box to your user page. Is there a server resource issue here? At least you are consistent. And given your lightbulb is off, perhaps you are even secretly a sympathetic conservationalist ;-) Stephen B Streater 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Try Xanga or livejournal. --Improv 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, go somewhere else per Improv. --Cyde↔Weys 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted good thing to be in support of, but be in support of it somewhere else. -M^ask 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If we keep this while deleting other belief boxes, we're making Wikipedia take a position as to which opinions are inflammatory and which are kosher. That's way beyond what an encyclopedia needs to be doing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The converse is also supported by your argument. If other userboxes stay, then so should this one. Personally, I'd like to see all userbox creations & deletions stop, except for deletions due to incontrovertible issues, like copyright violations.--Ssbohio 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, Ssbohio, the converse also works, except that means we keep "user Nazi", so I'm willing to dismiss that option out of hand. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete In this discussion, there are several comments favoring keeping this template deleted. Many of them are informative & interesting. However, I have yet to see one directly address itself to how this template is divisive and inflammatory, per T1. It seems like that would be the central issue in this discussion. I can't see support for green energy to be sufficiently divisive and inflammatory to merit the ultimate sanction, deletion. If there is a legitimate T1 problem, then changing the text of the box would be, to me, a more appropriate solution. However, I don't see this template as having remotely met T1. Lastly, there's a strong argument to be made whether the same CSD should apply to templates used only in userspace. The fact that they exist in omnispace is an artrifact of how the wiki software was constructed. It bears no direct relationship on where the template is seen, nor on its content.--Ssbohio 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  So, you're willing for Wikipedia to decide which particular issues are inflammatory and which ones aren't? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  I am alarmed at the apparent level of intolerance in the Wikipedia community, and also misunderstanding: the userbox in question expressed a positive attitude towards green energy. This is not in any way "polemical", and not a "potentially inflammatory viewpoint" (as a user who prefered to withhold his name stated above), at least not to anyone without a pathological and irrational dislike of green energy - how can someone else's preference for a a certain type of energy source be "inflammatory"? I'm glad to see the only user who referred to the content of T1 pointed out how utterly inappropriate the use of this to justify deletion was. Elroch 02:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  So what if the attitude was "positive"? It has no place on Wikipedia; it serves no purpose in building an encyclopedia and, indeed, actively combats that goal.--Sean Black 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  How could anyone who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being "pathological and irrational" be considered polemical or inflammatory? See, the difference between the good userboxes and the bad userboxes is that the good userboxes are right. Keep deleted. · rodii · 03:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Fuddlemark and others, above.--Sean Black 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete improper deletion. Not T1 by any stretch of the imagination. Put the crack pipe down and stop deleting userboxes. Thanks. --70.213.250.24 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is exactly the sort of stuff we are currently trying to keep out of template space (pssssst, T2). Metamagician3000 08:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and reword so it is not divisive.  Grue  08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  I wouldn't oppose a template declaring expertise in green energy. That'd be downright encyclopedic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Me neither. That's not a reason for undeletion, however; a new template can simply be created at the old name. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted It's becoming clearer and clearer that these things don't belong...this was a proper deletion. Rx StrangeLove 15:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as I fail to see how it met a T1 deletion. If it had been nominated on TfD, perhaps it would have been kept or maybe it would have been subst and deleted, but I don't see how having a userbox saying This user supports green energy is divisive or inflammatory. It isn't like it's saying This user dislikes people who don't use green energy, it is merely highlighting the fact that the user supports the idea of green energy. If the subject itself was divisive, then people would boycott shops because the shop uses green energy. This userbox doesn't say this user supports greenpeace - a subject which could be divisive. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete, unless every single userbox stating a political, ethical, moral or religious viewpoint is also deleted. And I understand Jimbo's position is to win people over 'one user at a time', not to merely delete the userboxes. Bastun 11:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  That's what Jimbo said 3 months ago, right. You know what he said two days ago? What part of "the template namespace is not for that" don't you understand? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, hopefully to be followed by deletion of all other non-encyclopedic userboxes.Timothy Usher 16:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as done out of process and not likely to have been the result if process was followed. Between a user who stated that they couldn't find a deletion discussion at TfD and the failure of all prior posters to reference one, it is safe to conclude that this was done as a speedy delete. The above discussion shows no evidence that it met either prong of the T1 test, much less both - therefore it was a violation of process. Userbox templates that are actually used often do not get deleted during a TfD discussion, therefore the argument that the shortcut for a TfD discussion is false. (Those that do are the least used and/or the most contentious - this falls into neither group.) We may someday see Jimbo's preference for not having userbox templates come to pass, but the community as a whole is leaning the other way at the present time and Jimbo has explicitly said that he has not made policy by fiat on this topic, so the potential argument that this will eventually become policy is unproven and does not sustain this out of process action. GRBerry 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  T1 isn't a pronged test. Divisive userboxes don't belong on Wikipedia. Inflammatory userboxes don't belong on Wikipedia. They're gone. Finito. Speedied. That's what T1 is about. --04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep delted - template space isn't for biased bumper-stickers. --Doc ^ask? 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Invalid deletion. Hong Qi Gong 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

26 May 2006

Left-wing terrorism

• UnDelete. There was no concensous to delete this article. Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism). For the content of article to be merged with Political terrorism it will need to be undeleted. Also there may have been some vote gathering see [27], [28], [29] and [30]. --JK the unwise 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close and Keep Deleted. If my counting isn't totally screwed up, I count 15 deletes, 5 merges, 2 keeps, and 1 keep or merge. I don't see any logic that can justify "Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted." Also, quite frankly, all the NPOV content is already at Political terrorism. - Fan1967 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question: The consensus to delete was clear and I can not disagree with some of the core concerns raised during the AFD discussion. However, I note that this article's earliest version pre-dates the Political terrorism article. Was content merged before or during the discussion? If so, we would seem to be obligated to either restore and redirect or to execute a history-only merger in order to preserve the attribution history - a requirement of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, by my own analysis, the AfD doesn't quite have enough consensus for the article to be deleted. I would have closed this as no consensus and applied the default action of merging with Political terrorism as mentioned by the DRV nominator. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment I'm curious what you mean by merge. From what I remember, the content worth keeping from Left-wing Terrorism is already in the other article. Fan1967 20:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What I meant by merge is that I don't know if the information was already merged. :-) If the content is already merged, then a redirect is in order. In fact, if the content was actually merged FROM this article, then an undelete and redirect is required by GFDL unless an admin cares to perform a history merge (which is more difficult). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect it would take a pretty detailed historical comparision to figure out what appeared where first, and whether any was actually copied. I don't have access to the deleted article, but my impression ws that most of the information was substantively the same, but not word-for-word as if it had been copied. Fan1967 20:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Relist on AfD, and see if we can get a proper discussion going, instead of a silly poll full of silly little icons. I'm rather more supportive of AfD than most users, but a vote, using icons, is indefensible. Bah. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 22:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That set of icons lasted through about one day of AfD's, and I agree they're silly, but I don't see how they're relevant to the validity of the discussion. Fan1967 13:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undeleted and relist. Closing seems premature. Cynical 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - decision within reasonable admin discretion and article itself superfluous. Metamagician3000 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, and then re-list on AFD for consensus. Silensor 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question. There was a companion article to this, on Right-wing terrorism (AfD here), similarly deleted for pretty much the same reasons. Why is only one of them being targeted here? Fan1967 19:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Answer: because noone has bothered to bring it up for DRV. If you decide to bring it up, I'd be happy to look at the AfD and offer my opinion on it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Oh, no. I don't want that one DRV'ed any more than this one. I just find it interesting that only one of them was brought here. Fan1967 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Stella Maris College Scout Group

• UnDelete - this article was still a stub. However, it was deleted. Wikipedia does not have information about scout groups in Malta. The page The_Scout_Association_of_Malta is the only Maltese scouting page. Wikipedia needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc. The Stella Maris College Scout Group is an active group, which deserves to be listed. It has carried out a number of joint activities with different scout groups around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk • contribs)
• The entire content of the article was

  "Stella Maris College Scout Group is part of The Scout Association of Malta"

  and an externel link. - I'd just recreate it with something more substantail. RN 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, discourage recreation. Individual Scout groups are not notable. "Wikipedia needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc" - no, the organisation's website needs that, this is an encyclopaedia and not a vehicle for promoting Scout groups. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this looks to be a valid A7 (non-notable group). --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• I pulled the trigger on it, so, in a sense, I've already "voted," and therefore all I can do is elaborate on the rationale. I'm sure it's a fine troop and important in its way. However, it is not a thing that is mentioned in multiple contexts, documented in several sources, beyond the local area. Therefore, there isn't a need for contextualizing and explaining the thing. There would be nothing wrong with putting the information in the extant articles on scouting, or, if appropriate, the cultural life and schools section of Malta, but, as a stand-alone entry, there just isn't an encyclopedic need at this time. Geogre 20:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, concur with Samuel's reason. --Improv 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

25 May 2006

List of Michael Savage neologisms

The AfD discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Michael Savage neologisms (second nomination).

• UnDelete - list :[31]offers insight into controversial cultural icon, unique extensive jargon reference

Its never been deleted... RN 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It has, he just linked to the wrong article in the heading. I've fixed it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. AfD was closed quite properly, and a look at the article shows nothing that would be missed from Wikipedia. If you'd like to take the content and host it on your own website, I'd be happy to provide it to you. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• endorse closure - keep deleted. This was a valid afd with a 100% consensus that there shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia (there were votes to transwiki to Wikiquote, 10 votes to delete and one unsigned comment by an anon that didn't express an opinion about the article). Thryduulf 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but not the actual AfD result. Valid AfD here, but I wouldn't have put "no consensus, leaning towards delete" as the result in the AfD. After discounting the invalid votes, this was definitely a consensus towards delete. A "no consensus" means that the article is kept, not deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC), valid AfD (changed my comments now that RasputinAXP provided a link to the most recent AfD). --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• AfD isn't a vote ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, as an AfD closer, I'm aware of that. As I've noted somewhere else, while AfD isn't a vote, and each entry in an AfD is a comment, I choose to name any comment which calls for an action (such as comments that start with Keep, Merge, Redirect, or Delete) a "Vote" for convenience and to differentiate it from an actual comment which doesn't call for an action (such as comments that have no heading, or start with Comment). If you would prefer that I use a different noun, I can call it an iVote, nVote, !Vote, notVote, or something like that. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted: List of neologisms from a single person? That's a tribute page, a fan page, or an attack page, and it's not an encyclopedia article. Geogre 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: as the closer of the most recent AfD on this article, it was a pretty clear Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I changed my comments to reflect that. I had to look for the AfD manually, but didn't think to look for the second nom. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted The closure and deletion was proper, and valid reasons for deletion were expressed in the first and second AfDs and here above, while no reasons expressed for keeping it had any weight to them. (Even if the article were deemed to be proper for WP, it had many problems I had identified in the 1st AfD the maintainers of the page were apparently unwilling to address.) Шизомби 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• transwiki to Wikiquote list qualifies as a unique citation of quotes
• Comment First Deletion Request Discussion Page has further objections as to encyclopedic relevance and other objections--Lr99 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (as delete) The AfD was altogether proper, and there was a clear consensus for delete (for our purposes, transwiki can be understood as supporting delete [since those supporting transwikification acknowledge that the information is not appropriate for Wikipedia]). Nothing is adduced here toward the proposition that new evidence exists such that those supporting delete would think the article ought to be kept, and, inasmuch as the general AfD objections (mine, at least, in which others joined) were as to the page's being an indiscriminate collection of information and in any event largely unverifiable, no such evidence could be introduced. I can't think of any valid challenge one could essay to the AfD or to this article's deletion. If one wants to transwiki (I'm not certain that Wikiquote would want the page, but I'm not wholly familiar with their inclusion guidelines), I think the text of original should surely be copied to a user subpage, with the proviso that the text shouldn't stay there forever; we'd then simply be hosting a deleted article in userspace. Joe 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Transwiki to wikiquote as well, perhaps, but definitely delete. --Improv 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer

Discussion closed, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer.

Superhorse

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhorse

I would respectfully request that another look be taken at this article. I have added more supporting evidence since the AFD started and I am not sure whether or not it was taken into consideration. This is my first article and I think that a little construtive criticism wouldn't hurt and would help me right write articles in the future.

Quite frankly my first experience was a bit nerve wrecking and I feel that I have learned little and am unsure if I am capable of at least starting an article that would be acceptable to Wikipedia' standards. Thanks for all your help and I look forward to a fair and ubiased discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanax (talk • contribs)

• Comment FWIW, the deleted article can be viewed at a Google cache. Fan1967 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As the closing admin, I'd like to say that I would have liked to be informed about this DRV (please take a look at {{DRVNote}}). Now, to the AfD itself. First of all, it wasn't easy, sifting through the extremely long comments by all the new users (likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets). Next, after discounting those invalid votes, on a strict vote count, I counted four deletes and one keep, with the one keep being by the original author. The delete votes took into account the evidence you were presenting, and they still decided that the subject wasn't notable enough to be included. If this article is kept deleted, it's okay, it's not easy sometimes figuring out what's notable and what's not. It might be easiest for you to find a small music-related articles and expand those instead. Wikipedia could use some expansion of articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Once the band has more coverage will they be reconsidered for inclusion on Wikipedia or is this a life time delete? user = meanax
  • No, it's not a lifetime delete. Bands that become notable (per Wikipedia:Notability (music), usually by being signed to a major label and/or releasing a notable album) can and do get undeleted and mentioned on Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment And one shouldn't be discouraged when the subject of an article he/she wrote is deemed non-notable, even if he/she is closely linked with the subject. After all, were Wikipedia around in 1958, we'd like have adjudged as non-notable (in view of our not being a crystal ball) The Quarrymen, but we'd surely have included them upon their becoming The Beatles and having some commerical success. Joe 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Dear Deathphoenix, I just want to clarify that all the long comment on that AFD were mine. Two of the keep voters I new. I third one I had no idea who or she was. I want to make clear that I was not trying to circumvent the system. I promise. user = meanax
  • No problem. I closed the AfD without malice and in as fair a way as possible. Oh, and note my additions to the response above. --Deathphoenix ʕ
• No opinion to the deleted article, but there could be a good article under this name, I think. Isn't superhorse a breeding/racing term applied to specific horses like Secretariat which perform a standard deviation or two above literally any of their peers? I will look into it more and write a draft when I have time and am on my normal computer. --W.marsh 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentIndeed; when first I saw this listing, I assumed it to be an article apropos of the equine appellative (recently ascribed to Barbaro [pre-injury]). Joe 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• I've removed the {{deletedpage}} now that the user is involved in DrV. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Legit afd (whose concerns focused on verifiability); too local (no mention in Allmusic.com, no titles for sale at Amazon). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Alright. Not wanting to beat this "Superhorse" to death (Just a joke fellas), Keith Kozel, the singer is on IMDB, Allmusic with his other project (GAM is the name of his other band), was awarded best band of GA (While performing with GAM) by a popular poll conducted by Creative Loafing (Currently called Access Savannah and with circulation of 40,000 weekly copies) and has had his paintings published on The Church of the Subgenius. Between Superhorse, GAM, his paintings being published, and his acting endeavors Keith Kozel has been mentioned in over 70 articles from Atlanta to Savannah, GA to Charleston SC. Provided you accept his accomplishments as "notable" would you: 1. Reconsider the article. 2. Let me do an article on GAM. 3.Let me do an Article on Keith Kozel and have a stub for Superhorse since he is the founder, composer and lyricist of the band? C'mon! Help me out fellas. I'm doing it all in the name of rock'n roll and rooting for the home team.User = meanax

I don't see an entry for Keith Kozel on AllMusic, though I did see one album listed for Gam. He has two movies listed in IMDB (both of which appear to be limited release) and 1,340 Google hits. I'd say that's borderline notability at best. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Sorry. The mention on Allmusic is for GAM, which Keith is also the founder, composer and lyricist. Does that count? Meanax 21:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt

Exicornt is a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use to describe a train track junction that resembles the formation of the letter X. Six months ago, I created an article on this term. However, it ended up getting deleted and renamed to crossover (rail). Several attempts have been made by other editors (not me) to include this word on the article.

I understand that some editors object to having to word mentioned on Wikipedia. However, I would like to dispel one user's statement that mentioning exicornt on the article is considered vandalism. Therefore, I am writing to request that Exicornt (which is now a Junk Page) [protected against re-creation (a more accurate term)]) be deleted and redirected to crossover (rail)

I am requesting this because I noticed a recent edit war on the crossover (rail) page itself. I fear some editors might accusing me of being a so-called "sockpuppet" as a result.

Though I am prepared to take any criticism, I feel posting the word here for review is a proper course of action to take in light of the recent controversy. Edit warring isn't the answer to solving this problem. -- Eddie, Thursday May 25 2006 at 14:01 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The AFD was completely legit, apart from Eddie's attempts to make it go away. Edit warring doesn't change the reasons why "exicornt" was deleted. No need to create a redirect that would legitimate this word that is used only by a small (perhaps very small) local group. FreplySpang 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. I don't see that anything has changed since the AfD result, which was exactly correct. Google still shows no uses of this that aren't Wikipedia or Wiktionary-related. · rodii · 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

keep deleted I am a railfan, I've been a model railroader since the early 1980s, I helped build the Wisconsin Central project layout for Model Railroader Magazine (article series published in 1997), I'm the lead editor on Portal:Trains and I'm model contest co-chairman and a Director-At-Large for the Midwest Region of the National Model Railroad Association. I hadn't heard of this term before it popped up last November; I've only heard that track configuration referred to as a crossover. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted/NO redirect. Eddie, "exicornt" isn't "a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use", it's a term you made up yourself. This explains the recent edit warring over blanking its AFD -- it's either a crude attempt to hide the background (with its rampant sockpuppetry and vigorously unverified claims) and/or do some SEO cleansing. (I recommend reading the AfD discussion. It is...enlightening.

And by the way, the only reason I stumbled over the recent AfD edit warring was following the shenanigans of some sockpuppetry over the AFD of a made-up New Jersey baseball team, and those sockpuppets seemed interested in the old AFD. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Obviously. But let me note that unless if anyone has good evidence the the contrary, it may be reasonable to imagine that the recent rash of vandalism is by an impersonator, not Eddie himself. I certainly don't have a way to tell. However, the fact that Eddie still doesn't "get it" about "Exicornt" and has used this opportunity to open this silly DRV doesn't seem very reassuring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't find it reasonable, given his history of rampant sockpuppetry and unceasing attempts to get attention for his made-up word.

And speaking of possible sockpuppetry, I notice that a week ago that someone named Dnd293 (talk · contribs) created redirects to Crossover (rail) at Exicornts and Exicornt. -- which were the user's only edits. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. And of course there's a good chance you're right. But Eddie edited in seeming good faith for a good number of months after he ceased the suckpuppetry and exicornting, so maybe I'm AGFing a little hard here in a spirit of optimism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I remember the MfD for Eddie's userpage version of exicornt, where his submitted "source" was a hand-drawn, sloppy diagram of same. I don't see any new sources that would lead to a reevalution here. Xoloz 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per everyone above. 'Nuff said. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no compelling reason to overturn previous AFD, nor any new evidence to invalidate it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This has a been an interwiki problem for six months. —Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lock-icon.jpg

Speedy deletion in violation of the quoted WP:CSD "I1" (redundant): A JPEG is clearly not in the same format as an SVG, not only my browser knows this (unfortunately). The icon was in use for several weeks on almost all template talk pages using {{Protection templates}} after somebody proposed it on one of these pages as general "protected" icon. I tested it because visible is better than broken from my POV on Protection templates for about a month - there were no objections. Therefore I added it to the (few) unprotected protection templates (excl. the semi-protection templates, where a lock icon makes no much sense) today. The edit history clearly stated "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Images cannot be restored. Please re-upload it and continue to discuss the issue of what image should be used.--Sean Black 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do you have a copy of the image? It's not possible to undelete images, so unless you have a copy somewhere that you can upload if the DRV passes, it won't really help to list it here... Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I only saw it on Template talk:Vprotected - most Wikipedia icons don't work with my browser, it's too old for inline PNG. Therefore I won'tb miss the few exceptions like wikipedia_minilogo.gif or this JPG. I can transform PNG to say GIF and upload that. If the result is smaller (in bytes) without untolerable losses, otherwise that would be a stupid strategy. -- Omniplex 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What are you using, Mosaic? Even Netscape 4.5 could handle inline PNG images. --Carnildo 09:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • mozilla 3. -- Omniplex 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Reupload This truely puzzles me. I assume no bad faith on Borg Hunter's part, but I really don't have a clue how this happened =) Someone enlighten me =P --mboverload@ 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, it can't be undeleted, as admins don't have the technical ability to undelete images. Perhaps it might be cached by Google, but I doubt it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you understand? It is the same thing as Image:Padlock.svg. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I certainly can't judge it, I've never seen the PNGified SVG. Should I convert it to GIF? -- Omniplex 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Google's cache is here. Hurry, it'll be gone soon. --Rory096 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• I re-uploaded a new copy. Thankfully, I had it saved! --Sunfazer |Talk 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, stupid question, where, apparently not on w:en: and also not on commons: (?) -- Omniplex 05:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete What is the big deal? Citing CSD#1 was technicaly wrong, but {{redundant}} and {{BadJPEG}} images are deleted all the time when they are no longer used and replaced by a better version. Wikipedia policy is to replace lineart like this with SVG or PNG versions whenever possible. To quote the Format section of Wikipedia:Image use policy "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format.". Getting rid of this is entierly within policy. I urge everyone with old browsers that doesn't handle PNG's at all to upgrade or switch browser ASAP. --Sherool (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a minor addition, I do agree that this one should have been sent to IFD since it's "replacement" was not the same image in a different format and all that, that would have avoided some confution. However it would most scertainly have ended up getting deleted anyway wich is why I don't think it's a huge deal. By the way unless someone gets around to actualy adding some source info to this image it will get deleted again in 7 days regardles of the outcome of this debate. --Sherool (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#I1:_Image_format. -- Omniplex 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and re-delete per above. Ral315 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete per Sherool. Dr Zak 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24 May 2006

Why you deleted the 16 May article about Major Power undeletion?

You people at Wikipedia seem to have a problem with everything I write. You keep deleting them. I thought I was opening a big and fair debate about the Major power article undeletion, but then you deleted what I wrote, as you have deleted the article Major power. I would like to know what you will do if I make changes in the articles (for better, of course), or if I undelete some articles I think were fine. You people don't want valuable contributionss, you want the articles to say only what you and some users think is true. That is not the way, because sooner or latter, you will lose credibility.

ACamposPinho 24 May 2006

• The earlier debate was not "deleted", just closed. The decision was to endorse the redirect/status quo. Your nomination for reconsideration failed. See the Recently Closed section at the bottom of this page. Xoloz 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

23 May 2006

College Confidential

VfD, delete log

Its VfD was in August of 2005 and is no longer really relevant, as its 4500 Alexa ranking shows. Also, it clearly falls under the exception to G4 "ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject," which this was. I suggest listing on AfD. --Rory096 07:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and list on AfD. A 9-month-old VfD with only five participants ought to be reinforced, especially if new evidence for notability is claimed. Also note Rory's cite of the G4 exception, which is often ignored (or missed). Also note that repeated recreations can be considered evidence of notability (can't find the cite for that in WP's guidelines, though). Powers 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse continued deletion unless new evidence of notability is presented. Per WP:WEB, Alexa rank is not evidence of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Gnews also has some hits, but they're all borderline trivial mentions. --Rory096 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse but open to new AfD listing. I know of this site; I've used it before and found it very helpful. However, the content does not inspire much confidence in the article's potential, and as the others say, Alexa rank isn't a strong notability indicator. (Although IMO it still ought to count for something.) Still, I'm open to an AfD listing because I think we'd benefit either way. Still, there's no real hurt to the encyclopaedia if this remains deleted; it's a one-sentence stub. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Ghits aren't too bad either. --Rory096 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on AfD, but I do endorse the original deletion. The person bringing this up on AfD has presented some new evidence that could merit this article's inclusion in Wikipedia. An AfD is a good way to deletermin if it's more notable now than it was last August. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, add more info, and relist on AfD. I like this website a lot, but mostly it ends up being a bunch of snobs posting their stats (4.0! Spanish Honor Society President! Biology Olympiad Semifinalist! etc. etc.) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 21:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't even use it myself (though I believe my brother does), but some people might look for it in Wikipedia and so we should have it. --Rory096 07:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete in light of new evidence presented. Silensor 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim Dingle

AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Dingle

The deletion vote for this article appears to have been initially judged based on the belief that is was a smear campaign. Later in the vote the story was confirmed to have appeared in the news, but the delete argument was then based on lack of notability under WP:BIO. However, WP:BIO specifically includes people who have become known through their involvement in a notorious event. As the subject was clearly in the news for notorious acts, it seems that it would fall into this category and thereby satisfy WP:BIO. Reconsider. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I'm unclear on why this is being brought up again now. Some people at the time set up a website TimDingle.com, which has been kept updated, if you want a summary of the story. At the time, the story was: headmaster accused in drug case. Now the story is: headmaster accused in drug case, charges later dropped. From what I can tell from googling (could be incomplete) it seems this was a local scandal, which certainly was not a big national news story, and I don't see that it's a big enough story to meet notability standards. Fan1967 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note Interesting that TimDingle.com seems to feel the need to include Wikipedia in their coverage. There is a page [32] that seems to have the story as it was before deletion (based on my vague recollection of it), as well as a link to the school's article, Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, which has a lengthy section on the incident. Fan1967 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I can remember the news story, but after the initial five minutes of infamy it only received mention in a local context (I live in Buckinghamshire). This guy is still just a headteacher who got the chop, and there are plenty of those around. -- Francs2000 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted There's a pretty clear precedent that school headmasters/principals aren't notable enough for articles themselves, and a bit of scandal in the local press isn't enough to change that. There's already a full paragraph about it in Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. I wouldn't object to redirecting Tim Dingle there, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the later votes considered the news, and they were still all in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstract People

Why, why, why is the Abstract People article being deleted? Abstract People were one of the biggest metal acts in Ireland in the 90's!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .

• Because they don't exist, thats why. Quite simple really - fictional bands don't get entries on the Wikipedia. --Kiand 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But they can always have a fictional entry! Just close your eyes, and wish upon a star... and you can read their entry, deep inside your heart! :) --Ashenai 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're hilarious....NOT. Ya stupid FOOLS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .
• I went ahead and speedied the article as a G4 and the bogus AfD page as useless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Bad faith DRV. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Totally agree with redeleting as G4, bad-faith nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The page is now protected against recreation, and I've blocked the author after he created it a fourth time. Chick Bowen 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The original speedy-deletion was as a "hoax". As we have discussed often before, being a hoax is explicitly not a speedy-deletion criterion. As individuals, we are notoriously poor at sorting the hoaxes from the real though poorly written articles on obscure topics. The subsequent re-deletions were based on the incorrect assumption that the first speedy-deletion was appropriate.
  Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Like the participants above, I can find no evidence that this band really exists. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither will I argue to overturn it without some evidence of existence. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Rossami, I think you're right. It would have been better if I'd taken it to AfD instead of re-speedying it. There's no point restoring it now (unless evidence comes along), but I'll keep in mind to be more careful with G4s. Thanks for the reminder. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Just a contrary voice here: some people, like me, consider hoax articles ("Jimmy is ten years old he is the CEO of twelve major multinational corporations which took over from Bill gates in 2009") as vandalism. Their intent is to write "Fart" on our pages, so I don't think that an obvious hoax can possibly fail to be a speedy delete. If it's the biggest metal band in Ireland for a decade and yet gets no Google hits, including on newsgroups, then there's not much debate. Geogre 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think AfD gets the job done more cleanly if any doubt is raised, and very little harm is done in the intervening five days. That said, I also understand and respect your position, Geogre. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo - Metamagician3000 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion(s) unless evidence of verifiable existence appears. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - obvious hoax, personal abuse from the author shows lack of good faith. Demiurge 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion We can't take chances on hoaxes or unverifiable material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Some remarks. As has been pointed out, this is an incorrect application of G4: that criterion was rewritten last year with just this sort of thing in mind, and it was hoped that it made clear that this kind of action is inappropriate. Just a gentle reminder.:-) As to the comment on the nominator, his crude remarks indicate rudeness and incivility; they do not mean that he is acting in bad faith. Do be careful when questioning the intentions of editors. —Encephalon 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As an Irish rock fan, living in Ireland, I think I'd have heard of 'one of the biggest metal bands in Ireland' - and I haven't. Bastun 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Bastun, and the fact that the username of the person who brought it up is Abstract People. Google search for ALL results of "abstract people" (incl. paintings) is less than 50,000, so it can't be very notable. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah

Congratulations! After a brief discussion (that I just noticed today), with a result 12d:4k:2m, they deleted the {{see also}} for the section Hanukkah#Interaction with other traditions. Was the article unsalvageable? Or the deletors simply ignorant? Now, I'm not sure of the state of the current article (could somebody please undelete for review), as I haven't looked at it since last Hannukah. But this isn't usually considered "Original Research" to document religious practices (editors aren't making up their own), and it affects a lot of folks in my neck of the woods where mixed-faith families are common. Yet, I doubt we really want to make the already long Hannukkah article even longer.... A nice short separate article would be best.

• Undelete and fix any problems, as many (5) of the AfD commentors requested. --William Allen Simpson 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Concerns of those voting delete seem well-thought-out and valid. The article does a poor job of covering this notable issue, and has no sources. I'd say a sourced rewrite from scratch would be best. (I have history-undeleted for review.) -- SCZenz 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As I am the admin who deleted the article, I will not "vote" here, but I will explain my decision. Firstly, and probably most importantly, there was a clear consensus to delete this article as it stood. Secondly, I felt that the delete votes were better informed by our policies than the keep votes were. I myself am Jewish, and am fully aware of the issues involved in this subject; however, I too felt that the article as it stood controvened WP:OR, therefore I saw no reason to go against the majority of votes. My deletion of the article does not mean that the subject is either non-encyclopaedic or unwelcome, but that the article as it stood was in contravention of our policies (a matter which numerous editors agreed upon). An article on this subject must be sourced in detail as the Christian view of Hanukkah is far from universal. Rje 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- thank you for making it available for review, the article is only a paragraph longer than it was last time I looked at it. IZAK (Jewish) wrote most of it, so I'll prod him. I've no idea what needs "sourcing" as most of it seems to be actual quotes from religious texts. Most of it I've heard in sermons from time to time on the Christian upbringing side, so there might be seminary material somewhere, but I'm long since lapsed and have nobody to ask. Believe me, there's nothing original to somebody raised 5 days a week North American Baptist (with Jewish relatives by marriage). --William Allen Simpson 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  I, along with those who voted to delete the article, am not suggesting that IZAK made up the conent of this article. The problem is that the views expressed in the article are not universal, they are those of certain individuals (I am unaware of any Christian denomination having a specific policy towards the religious festivals of other faiths). This being the case, the article absolutely must be sourced (this is made clear at WP:OR). Like I said earlier, I don't think anybody is disputing that some Christians observe Hanukkah; the problem is that it is such a minority, combined with the fact that there is no standard way in which they perform their observations, that it is necessary for this article to contain sources for it to conform with Wikipedia's established policies. Rje 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry that you're not familiar with a significant number of denominations here in the American Heartland. Merely millions of people is a "minority" when compared to Roman Catholicism.... Anyway, the only contribution I made at the time was to merge 2 similar articles, and that's how it ended up on my watchlist. While I had an important legal brief due last Thursday, I rarely check the watchlist more than once a week anyway. Now, I've done a simple Google, and among the 847,000 results, there are several that outrank even Wikipedia! They are eternalperspectives.com, biblestudy.org, and thetribulationforce.com, all "evangelical" or "messianic", just as the article says! Like I mentioned earlier, some seminarian probably has it printed in a book somewhere, but I'm not the person to ask. Looks like User:Bill Thayer is correct about the future viability of wikipedia.... --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• IZAK's response: Hi everyone: Right off the bat let me make it very clear that I did not write this article (it's actually a stub). This material was mostly first added in 2004 by User:Chad A. Woodburn -- please contact him, his user page says he is a Christian pastor and he seems to still be active. I have not tracked it, but you guys have now forced me to look up its history, so here goes: After User:Chad A. Woodburn put it into the Hanukkah article it developed as something of a composite from a few subsequent editors, (examples:) [33] ; [34] ; [35] (there are more). When I was editing the main article about the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, rather than deleting this information which was causing constant friction between the Jewish and non-Jewish contributors I opted to move it into a more appropriate article in existence at that time called Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah (interestingly, User:Chad A. Woodburn, the author seems to fit into that stream judging by what he writes about himself) which was then renamed in another move by User:William Allen Simpson where it got its new name of Christian views of Hanukkah. So that is why there is some confusion, also see the article's history page. Note that this issue of sources was also raised [36] by User:TheRingess. Thus I hope I have clarified the questions you have here. Take care. IZAK 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. By the way, I vote Undelete, as I had no idea about its present fate. It deserves an article of its own. IZAK 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you, IZAK, for taking the time! --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It may deserve an article on its own (that's my opinion, others may differ), but what was there was completely unreferenced. At least Hanukkah bush has ample footnotes. Cheers! Dr Zak 15:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A cautionary tale -- in the AfD, somebody thought this was a copyvio. As the history revealed by IZAK shows, the cited page is actually a copy of wikipedia from several months later than the original section! --William Allen Simpson 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Look guys, I know this is an emotive subject, I really do, but the purpose of this process is not to challenge the outcome of the AfD debate. That debate has been concluded, the purpose of this page, as is clearly stated in the introduction, is to challenge my interpretation of that outcome. Without wishing to appear rude, it is not relevent to this discussion what your oppinion of the article was, or whether you missed the debate or not. What is relevent is whether you think a) I misjudged the consensus to delete, or b) that, if there was such a consensus, that the votes were not valid. I am sorry if I appear a little hot-headed about this, but the existence of this debate suggests quite a serious error on my part. Rje 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The votes were not valid. 3 cite a copyvio that did not exist. The nominator and several others call it original research. 4 call it "funny" and a "fork". And the most offensive:

    The "Christian" view of Hanukkah is like the "Dutch" view of Mount Kilimanjaro: not something to have an article about.

    --William Allen Simpson 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Even discounting the copyvio votes, there was a consensus to delete. As I have already stated the article failed our criteria for original research. While I agree that term may not be strictly accurate here, and this may be causing some confusion, if you read to policy page you will realise that the article wa in violation - hence the votes for deletion. Rje 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Legitimate Afd with a clear consensus. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Original consensus was clear. Chick Bowen 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Cut-and-dry AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Although my vote was the first that mentioned a copyvio, it is important to also note that my main reason was that the article contained original research. Kevin 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus was obvious. Dr Zak 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The WP:NOR argument, raised by the nominator and most of the other people in favour of deletion, was never rebutted by anyone arguing that it should be kept. The person who tried to say it wasn't OR failed to point to any sources, which is odd given that he claims to be studying the subject area. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - consensus was clear and there were no special circumstances. Metamagician3000 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion encyclopedias and POVforks shouldn't mix. No special circumstances I can see. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Claught of a bird dairy products

I made an article on this famous store on Manitoulin Island. Claught of a bird is indeed an actual person, and he does indeed own that store. I demand that it is un-deleted, for it has good information on one of Manitoulins most popular stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk • contribs) .

• Endorse deletion, even if there were sources it would still be non notable. --Rory096 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, there were no sources...non-notable and unverified. -- Scientizzle 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Various spellings of this article title have been made--each with the same content--and deleted. Articles were created by AppleJuicefromConcentrate and his (painfully obvious) sock puppet, Motorox. -- Scientizzle 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted If not a hoax then a desperate attempt for publciity. Not notable in the slightest. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Correcting the article title. I also find related deleted pages at Claught of a bird, Cluff of a bird Dairy Products, Cluth of a bird dairy products, Clauth of a bird dairy products and possibly Claught_of_a_bird_man.jpg.
  The reason given for speedy-deletion was "hoax" and "patent nonsense". I can not endorse speedy-deletion for those reasons. First, the articles were not patent nonsense in the specific and narrow way that we use that term here. Second, hoaxes are explicitly not a speedy-deletion criterion. As we've discussed often before, we've had too many problems with articles which were initially thought to be hoaxes but which turned out to be true (though poorly written and very obscure).
  The content of the articles was certainly unverified and was eligible for a regular AFD. Had this been limited to one article, I would be recommending that we overturn the speedy-deletion and allow AFD to take its course. Unfortunately, the author's other edits and patterns of behavior used up all my store of good faith. While I strongly believe that the first speedy-deletion was inappropriate, I now must endorse deletion under the vandalism criterion. Rossami (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I'm not sure what this editor is trying to accomplish, but it surely has nothing to do with the creation of a legitimate encyclopedia.Timothy Usher 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LIP6

LIP6 is one of the two largest computer science laboratories in France, with researchers participating at the highest levels (program committees of international conferences, editorial boards of scholarly journals) across a wide variety of computer science disciplines. It is the computer science research arm of Pierre and Marie Curie University (UPMC), the largest science, technology, and medicine university in France, and the highest ranked French university in the University of Shanghai international research ranking. As the researchers also make up the teaching faculty in Computer Science at UPMC, it is, with over 100 faculty, one of the largest Computer Science departments in the world. It is hard to understand how such an institution could not be notable. The copyvio concerns are mitigated by the fact that the contribution came from the copyright holder (the lab) itself. The lab administrators were not contacted, as they should have been following Wikipedia's deletion policy, to see if this would be a problem. The answer would have been that the copyright problem is not a problem, and the needed permissions for use of the text and images can be granted. Furthermore, it is not a commercial promotion. It is true, clearly that the style and content must be modified so that it conforms to Wikipedia's style considerations and NPOV. However, the material provided should serve as a good basis for this, and the original authors are happy to work as part of the Wikipedia community in making the necessary edits. A rewrite is called for, but we do not understand the speedy deletion decision. -- 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite The topic seems to be notable, but Wikipedia does not want articles which are merely copy-and-paste jobs from official websites, even if they aren't technically copyvios. We also prefer that articles not be written by their subjects or anyone closely connected with the subject. If anyone cares to write a real article, it would probably stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Based on the evidence available at the time, I would also have deleted this as a probable copyright violation. We have had such severe problems with unsourced and illegal content, especially violations about images, that we have unfortunately been forced to take aggressive actions. A rewrite seems appropriate but please be very careful to document the copyright provenance of any text or images copied over. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Request undeletion of rewritten article I did precisely as suggested here, writing a short article with no copyvio, following the structure and style of an established article on another computer science laboratory, and, not even eight hours later, the new article has vanished. It seems whoever did this does not care to partake in the deletion review process, as no justification for deleting the rewritten article has appeared in this thread. Nor, does it seem, has this new deletion respected the general criteria for speedy deletion, which specifically says: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical", which it clearly is not. MyPOV 6:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The deleting admin has already self-reverted the action and apologized in the edit summary. Rossami (talk)

Oz categories

CfD

There used to be several categories sorting the inamates in the Oz TV series:

• Category:Homeboys of Oz
• Category:The Aryan Brotherhood in Oz
• Category:Muslim Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Latin Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Italian Prisoners of Oz

Which were deleted recently by a few people who were against it. (Unfortunately, this deletion vote was not mentioned in any page, so no one could speak for these categories.

As you may see, there are too many articles regarding oz's prisoners, and this categorizing must take place. It should be also mentioned that these categories had some text in them portraying these gangs, and describing the main event that had happened to them during the course of the series.

I will put a link in here in the series' article talk page. Thanks! OzOz 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• endorse closure and keep deleted. I suggested to the review nominator that he perhaps write an article like Gangs of Oz (TV series) and include the information that he wants to have in the categories there, but it looks like he has rejected that idea. Categories should not have significant text in them, just guidelines for what should be included in that category. He could then have little headers for Fooians of Oz, describe the gang, and link to whatever related articles were needed either in a text or list form. Original multiple category discussion was here and previous Irish prisoners deletion discussion was here, and I was the closing admin in both cases. Syrthiss 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Was a very usefull categorizing IMO. I don't care about the text, though. As far as I'm concerned, it can be sent to a different article. Jimbryho 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Randy MacFarFarAway 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Proper notice was given on the categories themselves, and the vote was unanimous to merge. No valid reason has been given for overturning the CFD. The text that OzOz mentions above is irrelevant, because anything beyond a brief description of a category's contents should be put in articles, not in categories. Postdlf 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, CfD got it right. This was an unnecessary categorization. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is kind of irrelevant, but why were there redirects to those categories in articlespace? --Rory096 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the admin arrived at the only conclusion available from the discussion, the categories were correctly tagged: process was followed correctly. Moreover the Category:Oz (TV series) characters does not seem to require subcategories at this time. Tim! 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I voted to keep them (with some renaming), but nearly everybody else felt otherwise, so I think the admin came to the right conclusion. They can all go in the main Oz characters category.--Mike Selinker 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. If the rationale of those who vote to overturn is that they didn't get a chance to see the CfD debate, then I'm okay with opening it up for debate again.--Mike Selinker 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. There are about 60 articles there not including the CO's (Which some of you suggested to be sent to the main category along with the inmates. It needs to be sorted better. Plus, I believe that many readers might be interested only in the inmates of a certain gang (Instead of the entire category where all of the inmates shown throughout the series' run are put together. Yuval madar 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. Green Snake 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure As far as I'm aware all the cats were correctly tagged so notice was served of the deletion discussion contrary to OzOz's comment above. (I would reconsider my vote if someone could demonstrate otherwise). BTW, 60 articles in one category is not "too many". Very few TV series have multiple sub-sub-cats for their characters. Those that do are either exceptionally long-running (e.g. Doctor Who), have multiple spin-offs (e.g. Stargate), or both (e.g. Star Trek). Valiantis 14:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "As far as I'm aware"? They wasn't, and if you can't check nor remember, how can you say that? Can one of the admins please check the deleted versions and confirm that. (I am certain that is the case because I have been checking these categories on a daily basis before the deletion, and yet didn't even know it took place untill it was done) OzOz 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have checked and each category was indeed properly tagged; however Conradege (talk · contribs) removed the tags, in one case in the next minute after it had been added! Maybe you could have a word with him? Oh, wait…you already did. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete My friend OzOz has just informed me of this vote and asked me to join it. Dor Segev 17:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, no prior edits except 1 to his talk page. :) Dlohcierekim 14:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and keep deleted and chastise votestacking. Would be better served by an article which detailed this stuff. Alphax ^τεχ 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. It is also doubtful how many real-life users the "Overturn and undelete" represent.Timothy Usher 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hulk 2

• Overturn. The article on Hulk 2 was previously voted for deletion because it was pretty much unverifiable. Web research on the topic at that time (June 2005) only produced actors confirming they _would not_ be involved in a Hulk sequel. On 28 April 2006, Marvel confirmed that a sequel to the 2003 film was under development.

Currently the article Hulk 2 is protected and redirects to Hulk (film). I therefore propose that the page be edited to redirect to The Incredible Hulk (film) (the apparent working title of the film) which in turn redirects to the Sequel section of the 2003 film article. When sufficient information about the new film becomes available, the sequel information can then be spun out into its own article. Journeyman 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: redirects to sections don't work. &#0151; JEREMY 09:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Your suggestion would create a Double redirect, which is a Bad Thing. Ask again when you are ready to create the standalone article. Thryduulf 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, premature per Thryduulf. When the article is written, I don't even think you need DRV; you can ask any admin to unprotect Hulk 2 and then properly redirect it. Thatcher131 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think the protection is needed, so I unprotected it.  Grue  12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

22 May 2006

Xombie

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xombie

It was deleted due to not meeting WP:WEB. Xombie has been in two magazines so far Fangoria and Rue Morque]. This isn't advertising for the site, its about the flash cartoon that's being turned into a movie, how can Wikipedia not have this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the AFD discussion. Had I seen this deletion discussion, I would also have argued to delete. I can not convince myself that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include entries for every flash cartoon that comes along. Rossami (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. Af first glance, this seems to be a classic "No consensus" AfD, but only one of the delete keep (gosh, what a typo!) votes was valid: one was from an anon, and the other was from a very new user. That puts it right on the border for admin's discretion, and in this case, the closing admin applied it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's all well and good, but I think Simonoldyk's reason for proposing an undeletion was not that the AfD was too close for a decision to be made, but that new evidence has been found which shows that it does meet the unofficial standard of WP:WEB. AfroDwarf 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. So here's a situation where the article clearly did not show it met WP:WEB upon its deletion, and we now have evidence that it, in fact, does meet WP:WEB. Without seeing what was there before, I don't know what the article looked like, but given that it seems that process is being followed by coming to DRV instead of just recreating, and WP:WEB (the justification for deletion) is now met, we should undelete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Valid AfD, per Deathphoenix's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, not every flash cartoon that comes along gets made into a feature-length film released on DVD. Furthermore, this series clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. AfroDwarf 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no consensus on AfD and some claims to notability were presented.  Grue  12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as per User:Deathphoenix above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Howell

In the heat of the moment of deletion, many failed to look at the facts. A notable West Virginian.

• SBA Exporter of the Year for WV 2003
• Inducted into WV's GeneratioNext, 40 WV Leaders under 40
• Award from the WV Office of Tourisms Motorsports Council for promoting the State Through Motorsports

Nationally Known Automotive Person in TV and Print

• Car and Driver Magazine 2003, circulation world wide 1 million +
• C&D Magazine SuperCar Challenge Winnner. Considered to be the best of the best tuners in the world
• Mopar Muscle top Magazine for Dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler Products
• Named a Mopar mover and shaker in 1999 by Mopar Muscle Magazine
• Internet Movie Database
• DIY Networks Tricked Out-SRT-4 Exhaust Episode
• DIY Networks Tricked Out-Computer Episode

International Credit Card Fraud Expert

• CBS Evening News
• Wall Street Journal May 1, 2003
• Japanese National Television Appearence on Credit Card Fraud
• Lectures to groups nationwide on Credit Card Fraud Oct 31st 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM - How to Prevent & Reduce Losing Money to Credit Card Fraud

--71Demon 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been deleted twice; the first time following an AfD (Admins can see the final version before this deletion at [37]), with the consensus being that the article failed WP:BIO, WP:CORP and/or WP:VAIN. Having seen the content of the deleted version I would also have voted to delete for these reasons. The second time (earlier today) it was speedy deleted as an nn-bio (CSD:A7) but it could also have been deleted under CSD:G4 (recreation of previoulsy deleted material), that version [38] contained even less information than the previously deleted version and no substantiated notability claims so this was a perfectly valid deletion. Endorse deletions but allow recreation iff notability can be established. I suggest that you start composing an article in your userspace and only move it to the main namespace when it substantially improves on the first version to avoid a further speedy deletion under G4 or A7. If notability is still not established then there should be no prejudice against a second AfD. Thryduulf 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Never should have been deleted. Meets all criteria for a good Wikipedia article. --70.17.192.78 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/Restore this never should have been deleted --63.243.30.51 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• As far as I see it the facts weren't actually presented in such clarity during the afd debate, and so I don't see that the decision to delete was wrong. I'm with Thryduulf: if notability can be established then restore. -- Francs2000 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that I must disagree with the assertion that the facts above were not considered. In fact, they were clearly documented in the deleted version of the article. I find little evidence convincing me that they were ignored or overlooked by the discussion participants. I must also disagree with 71Demon's specific assertion above that Howell is an "international credit fraud expert". Three of the four articles he/she cites as evidence demonstrate no such thing. (The fourth is in Japanese so I could not evaluate it.) Howell was interviewed as a small business owner who has been affected by international credit card fraud. He is no more "expert" than any other small business owner so afflicted.
  I endorse closure (keep deleted) but, as Thryduulf said, there is no prejudice against a new article more thoroughly documenting his achievements. If such an article is written and upheld, we can do a history-restore at that time. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. Allow re-creation if the article addresses the concerns mentioned above and in the AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• (Caveat: I was the nom on the AfD in question). Endorse closure as a valid, good-faith AfD. I have no prejudice to recreation as long as it illustrates notability. To do so, the article should focus on Howell's work in the world of hot rods and automobiles (where he may possibly be notable in a relative sense) and it should prove said notability in that field. His status as a guy that has been interviewed because his business was ripped off (at least until his book is published) and his goal of seeking a seat on a local county commission should only be mentioned as side-notes and do not contribute either way to his notability or lack there of. youngamerican (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. Should never have been deleted. Deal with the issues with the article separately from considerations of whether we should have an article. Please don't use AfD as an easy road to fixing problematic articles. Grace Note 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

New Sincerity

This article needed expanding, not deleting. It is a verifiable media theory, although the article itself needed work. The opinion when discussed was mixed, but this is a real and serious theory that should have a place on Wikipedia. If the article is not reinstated, can I at least have the original content to be worked into a fuller, referenced article that can be? --Hippo Shaped 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Sincerity for the deletion debate.

• Endorse deletion but allow userfication. This was a valid closure of the AfD, but based on the comments by some participants it seems as though there is potential for a valid, verifiable article and indeed some work was done to improve the article during the debate, but this was not enough to influence a turnaround in voting. I recommoned that Hippo Shaped be allowed the content to work on it. I feel that it do the article good not to be associated with some of its mid-life incarnations as these were detrimental to people's opinions of it at AfD. Thryduulf 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I voted keep on the AfD discussion, but it was closed properly, if you can come up with a valid, verifiable article, then please recreate it in your User space and bring it back here for review. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. It was relisted twice, so it was a bit of a difficult one (though when I relisted it the second time, I didn't realise it was already relisted), but I think it was closed appropriately. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Successful Praying

I request the return of the article on the book Successful Praying because it was deleted without due respect for the deletion process. I would ask that this request be based on whether or not due process was followed (which I think is strong) and not on whether the article may or may not survive a more considered delete process (which I admit is less strong). See also the discussion with the admin about this deletion. Thanks, Brusselsshrek 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Technical undelete as it clearly wasn't a speedy candidate, however I recommend Brussels writes an article on the author Frederick Julius Huegel instead of or at least before writing an article on his book. Articles on authors can frequently contain most of the useful information about their writing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I have little doubt this was done in good faith, a table of contents of a book is copyrighted. After stripping the TOC and the copyrighted cover images (they can only be used in articles that discuss the book -- not ones that say Title is a book by so and so), all you have left is "Successful Praying, subtitled an explanation of ten rules which guarantee answered prayer is the title of a book by Frederick Julius Huegel." with an ISBN and a link. I don't think that result was an article. I would agree that an article about the author is probably more feasible, but if Brussel can mention something about the book other than the basic details (especially what makes the book special enough for an entry), I have little problems with a recreation. But I don't think the original should be reinstated. Userfy if he wants to expand. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I had fully intended to write more information about the contents of the book, but the stub was deleted within DAYS of it being created. The TOC was there to form a skeleton for what I was about to write. To argue that the content was not sufficient to justify recreation misses many important points:
    1. the article had only been created a few days earlier (thus deleted contrary to wikipedia guidelines of allowing a stub a reasonable time to develop).
    2. the author of the article was not informed of the deletion, except as a "speedy-delete" (while he was asleep) and so had no chance to add the real value which is suggested was missing
    3. the proper procedure was not followed, and I as the person to have most suffered from this lack of procedure, am simply asking for the right to create the article which I wanted to create.

    I will add that I have now spent a huge amount of time simply fighting against this speedy-delete, and it is a real tragedy that I waste almost all of the time I spend on Wikipedia editing recently because what I see as this admins blunder, rather than contributing useful stuff.Brusselsshrek 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Unfortunately, Brusselsshrek's statement of his/her intention to expand the stub past copy-vio status does nothing to protect the project. Every page must stand alone as is at the time you hit the "save page" button. The courts have not yet sanctioned us for tolerating copyvios for short periods but that is a theory that we should not test. Take the time to write a solid, non-copyvio stub. Then post it.
  As to Brusselsshrek's claims that he/she was not informed, no notice is required nor is any such notice appropriate (though it can, in some cases, be courteous). Please read (or re-read) WP:OWN. None of us has any claim to ownership of any page here. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, per Mgm & Rossami. Sorry, Brusselsshrek, dealing with copyvios takes precedence over everything. Even if you plan to expand the article, any content that is a copyright violation is simply not acceptable (for legal reaasons) and must be removed from the article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Deathphoenix. Although I would have taken a different route (tagging the copyvio and asking the editor to userfy it until it was further along) the destination is the same. Thatcher131 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get the point about copyvio. Question though, I have done the identical thing for the article The Cross and the Switchblade, that is, I have scanned the front/back cover of the book. Is that not copyvio? What is the guideline? I know there's a lot of general stuff written here about copyvio, but what is the story on book covers? Can I or can't I copy them? The book covers for the Successful Praying article were scanned at exactly the same resolution or size as the book cover for The Cross and the Switchblade for which nobody seems to be saying anything. Thanks for clarifying. Brusselsshrek 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the guideline at WP:FAIR it seems that a scan of a book cover to accompany an article about the book is ok. However, copying the text from the jacket so as to constitute the body of the article is definitely not. I would say that at least half of The Cross and the Switchblade is an unacceptable copyright violation. You should find some other way to describe the contents of the book in your own words. Thatcher131 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Videohypertransference

Wow... I really hope I am doing this right. Sincere apologies if I am getting this protocol wrong - I am quite a newbie. I have 2 points to make about the deletion of this article, or maybe 3. 1) May I have the text copied to my userspace? If all else fails here, I would at least be interested in getting the latest version of the text for my own personal use. 2) I didn't get any warning about the deletion notice (prolly because I didn't login for a couple of weeks), so I never got a chance to say anything about the deletion vote. I think the article is a valid attempt, and I would be happy to try and source the article a bit more thoroughly. However, as I pointed out on the discussion page, there isn't much information directly available on this topic via Google. It is a very recent phenomenon, and I did my best to scientifically describe the empirical facts. This is just my opinion, but I often find people have a very strange view of what science is! 3ish) I think the article can be improved if it is fully undeleted. The phenomenon of videohypertransference is a real one, and deserves documenting. It has grown out of the rise of video (and video nasties) in the west, and the popularity of video game culture in Japan. Thanks for your consideration, --Dan|^(talk) 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved the text to User:Dmb000006/Videohypertransference. Please stick a {{delete|unwanted user subpage}} notice on it when this deletion review is closed and you're otherwise done with the text, as Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Anyway, I think the main issue is: does anyone actually refer to this as "videohypertransference"? Otherwise the article is fundamentally original thought. In the absence of specific new evidence that would theoretically have caused the very clear consensus in the AfD to be otherwise, endorse closure. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... Would it be possible to get the discussion page restored too? I made some useful comments for the would-be deleter on that page, as well as some notes regarding the stories in the media. Thank you! --Dan|^(talk) 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, which was overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 May

1. Automobile manufaturers categories Sent back to CFD. 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Naismith Family Contested PROD, restored and sent to AfD. 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
3. Philip Sandifer DRV aborted, listed at AfD. 2006-05-26 19:30:22 (UTC) Review
4. Church of Reality Minimal discussion, but kept deleted on the basis of lack of stated grounds in the nomination. 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Azn people in United States Kept deleted unanimously. 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
6. AlmightyLOL Kept deleted unanimously. 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
7. List of video game collector and special editions By strict "tally", discussion was "tied", 3-3; however, weight of argument tipped in favor of relisting. 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
8. User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims Speedy deletion endorsed. 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
9. WWE Divas Do New York Keep closure endorsed. 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
10. I Like Monkeys, speedy reversed and send to AFD. 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Science3456 sockpuppetry AfDs, debates relisted except GNAA. 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Structures of the GLA, debate relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second nomination) 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
13. Prhizzm, undeleted and relisting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination). 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
14. List of proper nouns containing a bang This case was complicated by an out-of-process deletion during DRV. In consideration of the consensus afterwards expressed that this out-of-process deletion was in error, article will be relisted afresh at AfD. 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Brooks Kubik Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 17:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
16. ProgressSoft Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 16:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Aww Nigga Kept deleted and protected. 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
18. that ass Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
19. Matrixism Status quo (previous deletions and current redirect) endorsed. 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
20. Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system Discussion subpage undeleted. 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Male Unbifurcated Garment Deletion closure endorsed. 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Major power Redirect closure endorsed unanimously. 18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
23. User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright Deletion endorsed. 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
24. James R. Gillespie Deletion endorsed. 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Longest streets in London Deletion endorsed. 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
26. JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Template:Mills corp Undeleted and relisted on AfD. 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Israel News Agency Undeleted, relisting on AFD has been suggested. 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Eminem's enemies Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Cock block Narrow majority, 12-11, favor undeletion and relisting at AfD. 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Ryan Rider Userfied. 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
32. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 12:18:11 (UTC) Review
33. myg0t Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 08:06:33 (UTC) Review
34. Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine relisted to AFD 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Category:Sylviidae Accidental deletion, content restored. 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Closure as merge endorsed unanimously. 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
37. DJ Cheapshot, SpyTech Records and 4-Zone (rapper) Speedy deletions endorsed. 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
38. The Juggernaut Bitch Kept Deleted. 02:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
39. Thirty Ought Six Deletion endorsed. (Current redirect is unrelated.) 02:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
40. RAD Data Communications Kept deleted. - 12:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Link leak Kpet deleted. - 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
42. Conservative Underground Kept deleted. - 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Template:Tracker Kept deleted. - 11:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Gordon Cheng - Restored and relisted, now at AfD. - 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
45. Category:Wold Newton family members - Close of keep endorsed. - 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Ryze - Undeleted and relisted on AFD per consensus. 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Jack Berman - Restored history per consensus. 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
48. Ghey - kept deleted but protection removed. Redirect target undecided. 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
49. CEWC-Cymru - Restored as contested PROD. 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Nephew (band) - Mistaken nomination. Kept deleted. No prejudice against creation of a different article at the same title. 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Andrew Kepple - Disputed prod, restored and listed to AFD. 03:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Sports betting forum Resotored and stubbed by deleting admin. 07:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
53. YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam Closure of "keep" endorsed. 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Upfront Rewards Kept deleted and protected. 07:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
55. David Anber Kept deleted. 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
56. User_talk:Gomi-no-sensei/archive restored by deleting admin. 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 Kept deleted and protected. 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Willy on Wheels Kept deleted and protected. 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Aaron Donahue Kept deleted and protected. 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
60. OITC fraud Closure endorsed without prejudice to NPOV article being written. 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
61. StarCraft_II Kept deleted and protected against recreation. 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
62. Michael Crook Kept deleted. 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Dualabs Endorse "non-deletion" outcome but strong objections raised to closer's methods. 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
64. VOIPBuster Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Review
65. List of people with absolute pitch kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Template:Infobox Conditionals never actually deleted but no support for undoing the redirect. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
67. MusE returned to normal editing. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Template:Ifdef kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Reverend and The Makers. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverend and The Makers. 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Userbox, Userboxes. Both cross-space redirects restored by a slight 10-8 majority and relisted on WP:RFD. 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
71. Global Resource Bank Initiative. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank Initiative. 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cool (African philosophy). Closure endorsed but page already redirects to African aesthetic anyway. 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
73. Cajun Nights MUSH Kept deleted unanimously. 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Rosario Isasi Closure as keep endorsed unanimously, without prejudice to a future AfD nom. 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
75. El kondor pada Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Review
76. Futuristic Sex Robotz DRV nomination withdrawn. 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
77. Insert Text Redirect restored by unanimous consensus. 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
78. Scott Thayer Deletion closure endorsed. 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
79. Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease Recreation permitted. 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Category:User kon Restored, tho I (Syrthiss) am about to relist it with a cogent explanation at CFD. 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
81. List of "All your base are belong to us" external links Deletion endorsed unanimously. 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
82. SilentHeroes Different from CSD A4 material, restored and relisted at AFD. 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Bands (neck) Restored after copyright problem satisfactorily resolved. 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Review
84. The Amazing Racist Deletion closure endorsed. 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
85. User:Avillia/CVU_Politics Restoration permitted after removal of copyrighted material. 13:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
86. Gurunath Keep closure at AfD endorsed unanimously. 13:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Relisted for 3rd AfD, after deprecation of prematurely-closed 2nd AfD. 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
88. The Game (game), most recent AfD endorsed, page restored. 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review

Recent userbox discussions

• Template:User Republican, Template:User Democrat (result kd, WP:SNOW, strong endorsement and blatantly polemical userboxes.
• Template:User Chinese reunification (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW it has emerged in debate that PRC/ROC question is *de facto* polemical and divisive.)
• Template:User UKIP, Template:User UK Conservative, etc (result Close, WP:SNOW,massive endorsement for deletion)
• Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en Speedy undeleted and listed at TfD after initial defective DRV. 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User Church of Christ (keep deleted)
• Template:User atheist (result undelete)
• Template:User scientology (result kd)
• Template:User liberal (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW, massive endorsement)
• Template:User Hell, Template:User Ideal Dictator, and Template:User Elitist Consensus was to keep User Hell (which has already survived TfD), and undelete and TfD the others. 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User liberty (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User chav & Template:User notchav (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User hate (result kept deleted. WP:SNOW. Only nominator for review wanted it undeleted).
• Template:User Wikicheese-ologist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User ProIsrael: (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User varied sex: (result kept deleted, closed as frivolous challenge)
• Template:User Triceratops Accident (result kept deleted)
• Template:User antiuserboxdeletion (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Darwinist(result kept deleted)
• User:UBX/Communist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User No Marxism (result kept deleted)
• Template:User infidel undeleted.
• Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master ... it's complicated discussion
• Template:User against Saud (result almost unanimous keep deleted)
• Template:User_Unamerican and others (result nomination delisted early; template kept deleted)
• Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover (result kept deleted).
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts (result kept deleted)
• Template:User admins ignoring policy (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Unamerican and others (result kept deleted)
• Template:User vomit (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism (result: both kept deleted)
• Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker (Archive#Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker: undeleted and relisted on TfD)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Same Sex Marriage (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User independent Iraq (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User antiparty (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User review (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Copyright Nazi (result: kept deleted)
• User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF (result: undeleted)
• Template: User evol-X (result: kept deleted)
• Template: User feminist (result: undeleted)
• Template:User userbox insurgent (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User userbox revolution (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
• Template:User opposes ubx screwing (result: kept deleted as protected page)
• Template:User USA Police State (result)
• Template:User No Meat (result: recreated as redirect)
• George W. Bush templates
• Pseudo-templates Userbox:Anti ACLU, Userbox:Anti UN (result)

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)