Wikipedia:Deletion review

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.

• none currently listed

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 August 11}}</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 August 11}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 August 11|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 policy; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies 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".

20 June 2006

Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png

Can this be recovered for me?? I wish to use it in my personal sandbox. It was originally used on early versions of {{Template:WoW}}. --Sunholm(talk) 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Was that different from Image:Nuvola apps important.png? - Liberatore(T) 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Or even better Image:Nuvola apps important.svg. Anyway it was deleted back in October 2005 so it can't be undeleted (only images deleted after June 16 2006 can be undeleted). --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kinston Indians Players

AfD listed here as a group nomination for a series of minor league baseball players who play for the Kinston Indians, a Class-A affiliate of the Cleveland Indians. First things first, of those advocating delete, six incorrectly cited basic WP:BIO guidelines as the reason for deletion, although WP:BIO clearly states that those who play professional sports are deemed notable by the guideline. The discussion spilled over into the WP:BIO talk page, where the waters were further muddled. It's obvious, at this stage, that there's no consensus to delete minor league baseball player or professional ballplayers, so this should be overturned and closed as no consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP:BIO needs to change after that AFD, 13 deletes, 5 keeps one from the creator, valid AFD, endore deletion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The discussion at WP:BIO was promoted during the AfD, and very few people headed over to actually discuss it. I'm not convinced WP:BIO needs to change, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change it, either. Also, we don't vote count here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AFD, in process closure. None of the notability criteria are policy. WP:NN itself is only an essay, WP:BIO is a guideline. That the The Baseball Encyclopedia, a topic specific encyclopedia, doesn't see fit to find them worthy of an article is good evidence against our doing so. Discussion of modifying WP:BIO should occur on the talk page for it, I've put my two cents in there. GRBerry 16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As The Baseball Encyclopedia handles major league players, I have no clue why it would be cited here. They don't find them fit because they restrict it to major league players. Meanwhile, Baseball Prospectus's yearly guide covers major and minor league ball, and is praised by Billy Beane, Rob Neyer, and John Hunt, among others. You make the call, I suppose, but I think we got it dead wrong here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I don't see any procedural issues, and this is not the place to discuss the merit of the article. I don't have any problems if editors interpret "professional" as highest level in the sport. Most Class A players stock shelves to make ends meet. ~ trialsanderrors 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

AfD closed by User:Cyde as a delete. The discussion was refactored between new/socks and established users, where the subject of verifiability came up. As internet memes have been a very tenuous discussion as of now, with discussion at the proposed page not even sure what to with them, it was noted that this meme was different as the subject of the article has recieved some fairly non-trivial media coverage (MSNBC, CNet, New York Times). Thus, many of the rationales by established delete proponents concerning verifiability and notability were addressed. A request at Cyde's talk page was met with a somewhat terse dismissal to say the least, and still wasn't rooted in any sort of policy or guideline. So I'm bringing it here for review to be overturned and closed as keep, as it meets even the basic standards for notability and verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Discussion started 21:25 (UTC) 8 June. Refactoring occured about 13:15 (UTC) 9 June, based on edit history. Some of the comments were moved to the talk page in the refactoring, which wasn't immediately visible but was explained. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 for the talk page. GRBerry 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Cyde of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - Have you read those links you have mentioned? The NY Times article doesn't seem to mention the case at all and the other 2 are blogs. Sure you might say, it's the MSNBC blog, so everything it mentions is instantly notable. Not everything mentioned in fringe news articles are notable events, just as Snowspinner isn't notable, this kid (linked from the MSNBC blog) isn't notable nor is this kid. The close was valid, and whereas it's not the best of form to close an AFD that you vote on, it was still the correct action based on the arguments presented. - 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hahnchen (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Deleted. Take a look at the Internet Memes category list. How many held up, or were more than a brief passing story? How many have you even heard of? How many should be AfD'ed? When this story has been out there a year as specified in WP:MEME, or even six months, and people still remember it, then reopen the question of whether it deserves an article. Fan1967 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  I comment that WP:MEME, which is a proposal, does not currently have any reference to the passage of time, including the "one year" test noted above. The drop is recent, with an edit summary of "remove the classic definition per talk". Per the talk, this meme may itself have partially motivated it going away. GRBerry 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeek, hadn't seen that change. I would counter that this case is a good example of why we need such a clause. Look through the Keep comments in the AfD and see how many crystal-ballish comments are made about what the incident might mean, or how "I think there might be a real movement starting", or how it "will be an interesting case study", or how it "probably won't be forgotten." An encyclopedic article really needs to at least wait for the dust to settle. Fan1967 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The clause was poor for a variety of reasons, even before this AfD. Heck, the main complaint w/internet memes was the lack of third party sourcing (which is what somehting like The Juggernaut Bitch lacked before the movie), and we finally get one WITH third party sourcing and it's still bizarrely closed as delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, non-encyclopedic and non-notable. DRV isn't a second AFD ... the consensus on the original AFD was quite clear about this thing's deletion. --Cyde↔Weys 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Do not undelete. Do not keep undeleted. Do not keep it not deleted. Do keep not undeleted. Not not keep do undeleted? --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Result correct. (See, Cyde, I do ocassionally agree with your deletions.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

19 June 2006

UCIP

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UCIP

I would like to nominate the page UCIP for undeletion. The original contention for the deletion is that the subject is not noteworthy. However, I fail to see how that is fair when other, similary Star Trek simming organizations are allowed to have their pages remain. Furthermore, UCIP has somewhere between 200 and 500 members, although the recent decline in the popularity in Star Trek has diminished the numbers. This is a substantive group and may be of interest to the general public. Information about the organization can be obtained by emailing cinc@ucip.org.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.219.155 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Sango123 of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse The presence of other non-notable pages doesn't mean this one should be reinstated. Deleuze 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Concur with Deleuze. --Improv 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - non-notable. If the nominator would care to specify other non-notable cruft by name there is an easy way to correct the imabalance :) Doc Tropics 04:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - correct closure of AfD, also deletion of non-notable articles is the Wikipedia policy. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid per process and per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Contrary to the above, notability is a guideline not a policy, and "cruft" is not a fit reason for deleting anything, but this article was of almost zero interest to anyone not directly connected with its subject. The closing admin was in-process. Vadder 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The AfD was properly pursued. Additionally, though, "other X's are allowed" is never a particularly compelling argument, as the two items may not share much in common besides topic, and two wrongs don't make a right (but three lefts do). Geogre 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as the closing admin) for the reasons stated above. The AfD was given the proper amount of time for discussion, and there was clear consensus to delete. Sango123 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews

Bloger would like to dispute my closure of the above AfD, but since he is inexperienced with undeletion policy, I volunteered to submit a DRV on his behalf. The following is his first argument on my talk page:

The TTJ is regularly featured in the two Yiddish newspapers “Der Yid” and “Der Blot” that are the official newspapers of the two satmar factions (the Aron’s and Zalmons) and for that matter the most notable Yiddish newspaper with a combined readership of tens of thousands (not counting the forward which is considered modern by a lot of Hassidic Jews). The question is would it be considered a verification of TTJ works and structure if it is spelled out in the above newspapers?

If yes, I would be more than glad to present such writings and let the Yiddish speaking and reading editors here, confirm the content.

However I would need more time to do just that, since they don’t publish the newspaper on the web I would need to contact them, go to there office and get a hold of the articles.

Bloger 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He has since submitted a PDF (in Hebrew) which he says displays the notability of TTJ because it is mentioned in a notable publication, and provided a translation at User:Bloger/True Torah Jews notability. He has this to say about the PDF (here):

It’s an article that was printed in the satmar - Zalman Teitelbaum faction - newspaper Der Yid at the time of the Israeli election’s when the group TTJ under its Yiddish and Hebrew name “Natrina”(I’m awaiting) published a pamphlet with the teachings of the satmar (rabbi Joel Teitelbaum of blessed memory) against participating in the election’s.

No vote from me, as the original AfD closer. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse without prejudice: Essentially, the AfD's result was clear. Now, the reasoning for most of the delete voters was that there was an issue of verifiability. The creator of the article believes that he will be able to verify. In that case, the best course would be for him to recreate with a note on the talk page that the recreation answered objections to the previous AfD when he has the verification. Now, me, I think that a relist, even with verification, will fail, as I think that the voters would have moved from verifiability to notability. The author should work on the article in user space until he feels that he has verifiability and attesting to significance covered and then make it an article. In the meantime, though, this deletion was according ot guideline. Geogre 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse precisely as per Geogre. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - correct closure of Afd. Btw, I want to support nom's action to helpout new users. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I just want to make sure that Bloger feels like he's getting a fair shake. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - as per Geogre. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So I want to understand clearly, did I advance the case on verifiability, and I now have to make the case for notability?

Bloger 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sick Nick Mondo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick Nick Mondo

The decision of delete has led to the article causing problems among wrestling notability requirements as the wrestler in question, Nick Mondo, has had a DVD about his wrestling career released and is filming documentaries on wrestling. He is also, among the indy and hardcore wrestling scenes, considered especially notable. The article has then been pointed to as a sort of "if Nick Mondo wasn't worthy of an article then X isn't worth either". Another issue is the article already exists at Nick Mondo and can't be made into a redirect because it was protected. --- Lid 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge contents of Sick Nick Mondo into Nick Mondo and redirect. The existence of the article at Nick Mondo was not mentioned on the AfD, and as such it is reasonble to presume the voters in this low-participation AfD were not aware of it. Both "Nick" and "Sick Nick" articles contain assertions of notablity, but there are different ones such that I feel there is information to merge. I think a redirect from one to the other would be fine, I take the "do not redirect" comment in the afd to be referring to earlier suggestion that it should be redirected to Brownian motion. Redirects from nicknames are standard practice - see Category:Redirects from alternate names, I don't think the redirect will need protecting. Thryduulf 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Following Rossami's comments below about timing, which I admit I neglected to look at, I endorse the closure as valid at the time of closure, but additional information has been provided and there should be no prejudice against a sourced, notable article. Once the information has been merged, there should be no prejudice against a deletion nomination if it is still felt he is not notable enough. While an article that exists about this person, a redirect is apropriate, per my previous comments. If the article is deleted the redirect can be deleted per CSD R1 - the normal course of events. Thryduulf 08:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge anything useful into Nick Mondo. This information wasn't presented in the original AfD, and certainly seems to be a valid merge target. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure per Rossami's information. I obviously didn't look deeply enough into the timing of everything. Duh. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge - sometimes things slip through the cracks and this seems to be such case. Doc Tropics 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure - heh, I didn't think to actually look at dates<Wipes egg off face> Thanks to Rossami for a learning experience. Doc Tropics 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• The Sick Nick Mondo article was deleted as the result of an AFD decision on 16 May 2006 (and re-deleted on 26 May). The Nick Mondo article was first created on 17 June. The Nick Mondo article is therefore re-created content. (It could not have been mentioned in the AFD discussion because it did not exist at the time.) Reviewing the versions, I consider the newest version to be sufficiently different that it probably does not qualify for the speedy-deletion criteria. However, the core concern of the first deletion decision remains unanswered. I find no new evidence to convince me that the previous decision was obviously wrong. Endorse closure of the "Sick Nick" deletion discussion pending an immediate AFD discussion of the new version. If and only if the new version is kept, then undelete the old version and allow the redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Metamagician3000 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the original Sick Nick Mondo decision; should Nick Mondo come up for AfD I'm pretty sure it'd pass through, because in addition to his body of work in CZW, he's become a video game character, too. I'm adding links to the article now. Once Nick Mondo is AfD'd or not, there should either be a redirect from Sick Nick Mondo to Nick Mondo or the article currently in residence at Nick should be moved to Sick Nick. Try saying THAT three times fast.  RasputinAXP  c 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See above: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm agreeing with the close, and commenting on why I think it was valid (I did not vote at AfD but can see the deleted content). Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. --Improv 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per Sam Blanning above: NOT a vehicle for self-promotion. Fortunately Sam, reconstructive surgery can work wonders for damaged limbs. Doc Tropics 04:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Sam's arguments. The closer could have been a bit more tactful in writing up the decision but the decision is well within normal administrative discretion. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.

This user is interested in drugs.

This user is not interested in drugs.

Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just recreate it in userspace. DRV isn't necessary for that. See WP:GUS; it might even already be there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Userfy if not already userfied; Endorse closure if already userfied. jgp (T|C) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've posted the last three versions of this template before it was deleted. They're rather different from one another. Note the first links to a user category that probably ought to be deleted along with most user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though it would be nice if history can be preserved when it is being userfied. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering over 750 users link to this template, it would be nice to at least have a redirect of some sort if it is to be recreated in user space. The first version above is the correct one. --Pascal666 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. And re-point the existing links to the new location (perhaps per AWB?). CharonX/talk 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and put in the triage section at the bottom of TfD until user pages are modified by a bot. Ansell 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted from template space per T2 and German solution. Someone may userfy by all means per German solution, if that has not already been done. Metamagician3000 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore/Move to user space and then delete the template page or replace it with Template:GUS UBX to (after correcting links, of course). —Mira 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per the fact that this is not T1 and per Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion. -- Where 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS to preserve history. Though this userbox should not exit in template namespace any longer. Acceptable replacement of {{deletedpage}} is {{GUS UBX to}}. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS. Guess we have to cleanup and recover the wounded from some of the past battles. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy Will (message me!) 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, deleted by a revoked CSD. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and userfy per above. --Coredesat 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant [who has no contributions whatsoever other than his stance on this subject], Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon[ymous] comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.

  What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?

  And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Admin's action was correct. Comment - using charged words like 'asinine' does little to strengthen an argument. A more neutral phrase like "It seems unreasonable..." actually invites people to look more closely rather than smacking them in the face with it :) Doc Tropics 04:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. While we welcome facts from anyone, the discounting of opinions of anonymous and suspiciously new users is a long-standing practice. It is not meant to be punitive but it has proven to be a necessary defense against the frequent attempts we've had by vandals trying to game the system and to bias our decision-making processes. Rossami (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirt pudding

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding

• Undelete and comment The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Wikipedia obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. Baked Alaska).
• Endorse closure, keep deleted.There is a consensus—one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus—that recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is not comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in most comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back at least to 1921. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the WP:V and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports 1210 pages on Baked Alaska and six on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closing admin: I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding, and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A5. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks. There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's. Geogre 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Corect judgement of consensus in my view. I count 3 transwiki and delete, one transwiki (implied delete), my no vote, and one keep. That's a reasonably clear consensus to delete. Eluchil404 01:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Makharinsky

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Makharinsky

• Delte and comment. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a review for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. Interlingua ^talk 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (again) of self-evident vanispamcruftisement. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, Dezhnev (talk · contribs), is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, User:GOY2006, is also Makharinsky. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. Metros232 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse properly closed AfD. Keep deleted. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question. This page discussed at AFD, deleted, recreated twice (both times apparently by user:Dezhnev) and re-deleted twice. Since the nominator opened this discussion thread, the page has been created as a protected {{deletedpage}}. Is this discussion still relevant? Is anyone actually requesting the undeletion? Rossami (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar, the quoted result was keep, but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.

So Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD without prejudice. In this case I think the closing comment: "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting" seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. NoSeptember 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. Metamagician3000 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) Will (message me!) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus is probably right conclusion by the deleting admin but deleting the article this way and said it was a result of AfD is wrong. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This entry has now been recreated and redirected to Daily Kos by User:Hipocrite. I don't have issues with the action, but I have issues that the action was taken without/against consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The redirect isn't sufficient, imo, because that page doesn't contain the information from the blanked page (and shouldn't). If/when the page is recreated it will probably need to be protected from User:Armandoatdailykos, but that's another issue to take up later. Dori 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  DRV is not the place to pick the version of the article. I think people mean to say, undelete the history, let people edit the page, and start a discussion on the talk page to decide what the article should look like, or if it should be a redirect. NoSeptember 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I guess that's shorthand for "Unprotect so that it can be reverted to the last unblanked version". Reverting is not an admin job, unprotecting is. ~ trialsanderrors 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh? Reverting is not an admin's job? Perhaps I am misreading your post here... KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  I parsed that as, "any editor can do the reverting, once the article is unprotected, but it takes an admin to unprotect it. Reverting isn't an admin's job specfically." It's not a comment on what admins can and cannot do. · rodii · 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, rodii. ~ trialsanderrors 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mooted by recreation in appropriate version without GFDL violations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • False The minimum required is to undelete the history of this article, so that comments can be properly merged into "Daily Kos" when it is agreed as to what is proper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ??? What was the GFDL violation? ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

Overturn And Keep:As I stated in the dicussion for propsed deletion against the NN statement a(fter I figured out how to get there)I showed an excerpt of a NYT article that stated the band.It said: I have changed the page because look I just joined and still finding out what happens.For the non notable band issue I have an excerpt for the New York Times which states the band.(NYT Article):

Like MTV, it is starting to create stars that glow brightly within its own universe. The band Hollywood Undead, which did not exist three months ago, has achieved celebrity thanks to MySpace. "We were just a bunch of loser kids who sat around our friend's house all day, and we started making music and recording it on computer," one of its vocalists, Jeff Phillips, said.

About two months ago the group posted a page on MySpace decorated with pictures of all seven members disguised in hockey masks and other forms of concealment. They also included a few original songs, a fusion of heavy metal and hip-hop. "In a matter of weeks it got huge, and it kept on getting bigger and bigger," said Mr. Phillips, whose left earlobe was splayed open enough to accommodate a hollow ring the size of a wedding band.

"It's been maybe nine weeks, and we've had over a million plays. We have 60,000 people who listen to it every day. It's crazy. If you look at our page, it's like we're a huge band that's toured a hundred times."

Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract."

This can be found on their myspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogPHman (talk • contribs) ."

I didn't know half of the things people were stating as I am a new user.I KNOW THAT DOESN"T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO IGNORENCE BUT PLEASE ONE MISTAKE FORGIVE ME.Please recreate the article as I didn't mean to vandalize or create any problems.Thank you for your time.

• Relist:Had proven wrong the NN charge against the band NYT Article on Myspace BlogDogPHman 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• The correct link for the blog entry above is [1]. This is an article in the New York Times about Myspace generally which briefly mentions the band, not an article about the band itself. This is the fifth time an article has been created for this band, and it's been through AfD, with the consensus of "delete". There was considerable discussion of whether the band was notable because of its presence on Myspace, and the conclusion was that it wasn't. That conclusion might be worth re-examining, but we went through a full AfD back in April. And the band still hasn't actually issued an album, although they keep talking about doing so. I suggest leaving them deleted until they meet some WP:BAND criteria. Maybe someday they'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone without ever having issued their music on a physical record medium. But they're not there yet. --John Nagle 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This version in my opinion goes much further in adressing concerns of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall article quality, and it was deemed unfit for Wikipedia by an AfD consensus; I have no reason to suspect anything went wrong during the AfD, nor do I feel that this NYT article presents any claim of notability not formerly addressed in the AfD. In essence, Wikipedia exists to document bands and individuals that have already acheived fame, not to help bands acheive fame (as is MySpace's purpose). Unless some new evidence can be presented, I see no reason to restore. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with AmiDaniel's analysis. Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. I think the five previous AfDs pretty clearly prove consensus on this issue. Deleuze 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract." - in other words, they have zero records released. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, should be speedy deleted on sight. Extreme keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: At least this band makes its money online, so it makes sense that they'd believe that Wikipedia is a good place to increase visibility, but it isn't. Some MySpace bands are going to be huge, some became huge, but we should be behind the curve and inherent conservative and non-speculative, if we're a reference work at all. WP:MUSIC therefore requires records, record deals, and distribution (getting the platters in the Wal*Mart). When that happens, it will be time for the backward-reporting Wikipedia article. Geogre 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

16 June 2006

Sadullah Khan

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadullah Khan

The AfD on this biography received very few votes. In total, exactly two "delete" votes from registered editors (and one from an anonymous IP). I came across the AfD and article five days later than the other voters, and realized that although the article was badly written, it addressed a distinctly notable person who very easily passes both the "author test" and the "professor test". I voted "strong keep", and also cleaned up the article at least enough to more clearly indicate the notability of Mr. Khan. A version that I have further touched up (slightly) is temporarily at: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sk

In my comment, I specifically requested that the closing admin at least extend the vote, if not simply close it as "no consensus". Given that the registered editors at most split 2 del/1 keep, "no consensus" would be the right action even without the request. But given that there's is no evidence that the original 2 delete voters looked at the cleaned up article, a deletion just seems premature. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: at this point in the discussion, anon vandals added irrelevant comments. Now removed. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, given how few editors commented and how much work was done on the article during the AFD. -- Vary | Talk 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - closure was within discretion, and I'm not critical of it, but with so few votes and now a cogent challenge to the outcome, I think a further AfD with opportunity for a better debate is the safe way to go. Metamagician3000 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLE and MM3K ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reasonable notability has been established; articles deserves another chance. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I have no idea about the notability but I do feel the article deletion debate should have been resulted in "no consensus" --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, I nominated it. It was an oversight on my part not actually including a Delete. That would have made three registered users... and considering the wording of my nom, the admin may have just counted it as a delete vote anyway. If the person who asked for review has rewritten the article, then let him recreate it. I do not have a problem with him doing that, but I don't see a reason to overturn this AFD because IMO, the admin made the right decision at the time. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLe and MM3K. The article was significantly improved during the AfD to the extent the early votes can be discarded as out-of-date. Even without this, I would have either relisted or closed as no-consensus. Thryduulf 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - The rewrite is excellent, I have no question the subject is notable. I would have voted Overturn, but it only seems fair to invite a more general review since it did go through process once already. Good work LotLE, thanks for the effort. Doc Tropics 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

File:944 h.jpg

This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "Courtesy of Indiana University." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name? I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. --Jpbrenna 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted from Commons, and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at Deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually can now Will (message me!) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woa! Well, would you look at that! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Wikipedia Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. CharonX/talk 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• The image deletion is recent enough to make undeletion possible. I think the best action would be to contact User:Essjay (who deleted it), and make you case directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stone_Trek
• Overturn and Keep As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting WP:WEB, as it only needs to meet one of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [2], it was featured on G4TechTV [3], and even William Shatner plugs it on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at Newgrounds.com as well as StarLand.com, who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:WEB.

And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. MikeWazowski 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. Deleuze 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really asserting that the website for the Sci-fi Channel isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - Motor (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial works is the wording jeff. It's worded that way for a reason. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from outside the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - Motor (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - clearly meets WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in a new AFD (preferably) or Overturn and keep (per User:MikeWazowski's comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting WP:WEB that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. BigDT 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, WP:POINT accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
• The external links provided that supposedly meet WP:WEB did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that Site of the Week is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (Hahnchen) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Wikipedia articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. On G4TV.com, Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called plug by the All-Bran Man, which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive third from the bottom.
• As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of WP:WEB says "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - within discretion. Metamagician3000 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - Hahnchen 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Valid closure by deleting admin, no reason to overturn. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Hahnchen. — Mike • 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the mention on scifi.com does not meet WP:WEB. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - Nothing looks unusual or improper in AfD. ` LotLE×talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A spin-off of a spin-off cannot borrow the notability of the original: the cartoon version of "Joanie Loves Chachi" can't get "Happy Days"'s numbers. WP:WEB is not satisfied. Geogre 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber combat

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat
• Overturn and delete. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of WP:NOR — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it isn't a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
  • "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
  • "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
  • "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
  • "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
  • "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
  • "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
  • "It's interesting!"
  • "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
  • "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
  • "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
  • "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — Mike • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. Deleuze 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -R. fiend 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a Star Wars Insider ref and actual books Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? Kotepho 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, R. fiend seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - there was an obvious consensus to keep. MaxSem 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in WP:V, which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - this link in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own Star Wars Insider magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various Star Wars novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. MikeWazowski 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the quality of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — Mike • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[4] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[5], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[6], "More editing and cleanup can help."[7], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[8]. Also it should be noted that the nominator was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[9].
  Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, Yanksox ^(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. EVula 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - Motor (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. Kotepho 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. BryanG^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close. Properly closed based on the discussion. --JJay 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close per BryanG. —Mira 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. BigDT 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close followed policy.Geni 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per MikeW. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. Metamagician3000 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per consensus in AfD --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Original Research. --Improv 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —Mira 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to Wookiepedia, which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on fencing. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --John Nagle 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--Eloquence* 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Captainktainer * Talk 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. Barnas 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely add more references so that it doesn't end up here again. --tjstrf 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox (animator)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.

• Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Atromitos

Was speedily deleted, but after reviewing the history I cannot find the reason why. Tone seems to be inactive, so I'm bringing it here. Conscious 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Odd. User:MetroStar dumped a whole bunch of incorrect tags on it ({{copyright}}{{spam}}{{advertisement}}{{copyright}}{{delete}}!) without an edit summary in sight. Tone then deleted, probably in one of the occasional lapses of checking histories etc. I can find no evidence of copyright violation, and the circumstances are dubious to say the least, so I've restored and reverted. -Splash - tk 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, upon review, some large segments of Special:ContributionsMetroStar should not be trusted. -Splash - tk 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Close discussion, now undeleted by Splash. Sandstein 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Walk To Emmaus

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk To Emmaus
• Relist Only four editors commented on the article (3/1 for deletion) and there was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability. If the consensus is to endorse deletion I would appreciate a copy for my userspace, but idealy I think further discussion on AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• That is plenty to delete an article such as this, and there is no quorum for AfD. It was about some random "spiritual renewal program" that, at most, needed some mention in the article of the organisation that runs it for its 3 days [10], not the event of Biblical importance. Endorse deletion. -Splash - tk 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The organiization that runs it for it its three days Which one did you mean [11] [12] [13][14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] and that's just the communities in Texas that have their own web domains. What I would really like is for someone to explain to me more than just "nn delete". 10,000's of people have been on these reteats I think that makes them notable. Why do others think they are not? Eluchil404 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse it's enough - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• "There was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability"? There were no arguments presented for notability to discuss. None in the article, none in the AfD (Google searches and resulting hits are not a claim to notability, though Google can turn up reliable third-party sources, which can be), and none here so far. Endorse deletion at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 3 deletes, one redirect/cleanup. No serious arguments made either way. Deletion is acceptable, relisting for more input would have been acceptable, and anyone, including the nominator here, can do the redirect if they believe it appropriate. GRBerry 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - although this could usefully be recreated as a redirect to Emmaus--Aoratos 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually no, it should be redirected to Cursillo if anything, as it is the Methodist version of the program created because they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use the Cursillo name, among other things. It actually isn't a random religious thing, but as an offshoot of the Cursillo movement, it belongs in that article, or not at all. It is really not notable otherwise. It has nothing to do with actually "walking" or the town of Emmaus, so the above suggestion is illogical.pschemp | talk 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't illogical. I've no knowledge of the religious movement (it doesn't seem that notable - and others use the same name), however the phrase the 'walk to Emmaus' is notable as a common title for the pericope in Luke's narrative of the Resurrection. That's far more notable. Someone typing in 'walk to Emmaus' is much more likely to be looking for the material currently in the article Emmaus (or Resurrection appearances of Jesus) than this obscure group - so it should redirect there.--Aoratos 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Samuel Blanning and GRBerry for trying to explain. I'll try to track down some sources and create a better article. Any hints about what factors should go to notability: total participants, news coverage, web presence? Eluchil404 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard explanation for notability is Wikipedia:Notability. There are also eight specific topic guidelines and a number of essays or proposed guidelines linked in the navigation box on the right. The most relevant is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), but that is only a proposal in the process of forming consensus. I personally use a two part test - is there an explanation of why the topic is significant (a claim to notability) and is that claim verified in independent reliable sources? For independence, simple reprinting of press releases doesn't count, and neither do local program site websites. The first part of the test is enough to avoid speedy deletion, the second part is enough reason for me to keep in an AFD. GRBerry 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per GRBerry - the closing admin closed the AfD fairly. Kimchi.sg 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, handled justly. PJM 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks again to GRBerry for pointing me to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) which I had missed. Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? We don't need to hold a discussion of where it should redirect of DRV. Eluchil404 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus to delete, with 75% in favour. Seems like a fairly-dealt AFD. Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. No obvious reason to question sysop's judgement call. Nothing has changed significantly since the article was deleted that suggests that relisting would now give a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Per request, I've userfied the deleted content of this article to User:Eluchil404/Walk To Emmaus. If it should be decided, now or later, that the article should be restored, then the history of this page should be moved back into its original place. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within discretion. Metamagician3000 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006

Mending Wall

This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. Robertsteadman 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)

If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. Xoloz 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. Robertsteadman 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law as it applies today to items published today. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime. All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article. The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its copyright had already lapsed under the old law. It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Wikipedia is a violating the law. Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum. Prior to 1923, all published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law. Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer User:Brad Patrick. He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law. I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Wikipedia is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. Xoloz 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.

• Endorse closure. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not. I am compelled to wonder once again if User:Robertsteadman and User:Robsteadman are related. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide here. By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even if User:Robertsteadman were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited this source, a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! Xoloz 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Wikipedia's general understanding of copyright. The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to). Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own. Geogre 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and Project Gutenberg is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests. Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- SCZenz 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - how on earth did anyone even consider deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? Metamagician3000 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You did read the copyright discussion, right? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Wikipedia:Public domain was incorrect (which one user was). Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- SCZenz 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not discussing the merits of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. Metamagician3000 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

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

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.

• none currently listed

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 August 11}}</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 August 11}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 August 11|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 policy; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies 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".

20 June 2006

Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png

Can this be recovered for me?? I wish to use it in my personal sandbox. It was originally used on early versions of {{Template:WoW}}. --Sunholm(talk) 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Was that different from Image:Nuvola apps important.png? - Liberatore(T) 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Or even better Image:Nuvola apps important.svg. Anyway it was deleted back in October 2005 so it can't be undeleted (only images deleted after June 16 2006 can be undeleted). --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kinston Indians Players

AfD listed here as a group nomination for a series of minor league baseball players who play for the Kinston Indians, a Class-A affiliate of the Cleveland Indians. First things first, of those advocating delete, six incorrectly cited basic WP:BIO guidelines as the reason for deletion, although WP:BIO clearly states that those who play professional sports are deemed notable by the guideline. The discussion spilled over into the WP:BIO talk page, where the waters were further muddled. It's obvious, at this stage, that there's no consensus to delete minor league baseball player or professional ballplayers, so this should be overturned and closed as no consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP:BIO needs to change after that AFD, 13 deletes, 5 keeps one from the creator, valid AFD, endore deletion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The discussion at WP:BIO was promoted during the AfD, and very few people headed over to actually discuss it. I'm not convinced WP:BIO needs to change, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change it, either. Also, we don't vote count here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AFD, in process closure. None of the notability criteria are policy. WP:NN itself is only an essay, WP:BIO is a guideline. That the The Baseball Encyclopedia, a topic specific encyclopedia, doesn't see fit to find them worthy of an article is good evidence against our doing so. Discussion of modifying WP:BIO should occur on the talk page for it, I've put my two cents in there. GRBerry 16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As The Baseball Encyclopedia handles major league players, I have no clue why it would be cited here. They don't find them fit because they restrict it to major league players. Meanwhile, Baseball Prospectus's yearly guide covers major and minor league ball, and is praised by Billy Beane, Rob Neyer, and John Hunt, among others. You make the call, I suppose, but I think we got it dead wrong here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I don't see any procedural issues, and this is not the place to discuss the merit of the article. I don't have any problems if editors interpret "professional" as highest level in the sport. Most Class A players stock shelves to make ends meet. ~ trialsanderrors 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

AfD closed by User:Cyde as a delete. The discussion was refactored between new/socks and established users, where the subject of verifiability came up. As internet memes have been a very tenuous discussion as of now, with discussion at the proposed page not even sure what to with them, it was noted that this meme was different as the subject of the article has recieved some fairly non-trivial media coverage (MSNBC, CNet, New York Times). Thus, many of the rationales by established delete proponents concerning verifiability and notability were addressed. A request at Cyde's talk page was met with a somewhat terse dismissal to say the least, and still wasn't rooted in any sort of policy or guideline. So I'm bringing it here for review to be overturned and closed as keep, as it meets even the basic standards for notability and verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Discussion started 21:25 (UTC) 8 June. Refactoring occured about 13:15 (UTC) 9 June, based on edit history. Some of the comments were moved to the talk page in the refactoring, which wasn't immediately visible but was explained. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 for the talk page. GRBerry 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Cyde of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - Have you read those links you have mentioned? The NY Times article doesn't seem to mention the case at all and the other 2 are blogs. Sure you might say, it's the MSNBC blog, so everything it mentions is instantly notable. Not everything mentioned in fringe news articles are notable events, just as Snowspinner isn't notable, this kid (linked from the MSNBC blog) isn't notable nor is this kid. The close was valid, and whereas it's not the best of form to close an AFD that you vote on, it was still the correct action based on the arguments presented. - 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hahnchen (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Deleted. Take a look at the Internet Memes category list. How many held up, or were more than a brief passing story? How many have you even heard of? How many should be AfD'ed? When this story has been out there a year as specified in WP:MEME, or even six months, and people still remember it, then reopen the question of whether it deserves an article. Fan1967 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  I comment that WP:MEME, which is a proposal, does not currently have any reference to the passage of time, including the "one year" test noted above. The drop is recent, with an edit summary of "remove the classic definition per talk". Per the talk, this meme may itself have partially motivated it going away. GRBerry 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeek, hadn't seen that change. I would counter that this case is a good example of why we need such a clause. Look through the Keep comments in the AfD and see how many crystal-ballish comments are made about what the incident might mean, or how "I think there might be a real movement starting", or how it "will be an interesting case study", or how it "probably won't be forgotten." An encyclopedic article really needs to at least wait for the dust to settle. Fan1967 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The clause was poor for a variety of reasons, even before this AfD. Heck, the main complaint w/internet memes was the lack of third party sourcing (which is what somehting like The Juggernaut Bitch lacked before the movie), and we finally get one WITH third party sourcing and it's still bizarrely closed as delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, non-encyclopedic and non-notable. DRV isn't a second AFD ... the consensus on the original AFD was quite clear about this thing's deletion. --Cyde↔Weys 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Do not undelete. Do not keep undeleted. Do not keep it not deleted. Do keep not undeleted. Not not keep do undeleted? --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Result correct. (See, Cyde, I do ocassionally agree with your deletions.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

19 June 2006

UCIP

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UCIP

I would like to nominate the page UCIP for undeletion. The original contention for the deletion is that the subject is not noteworthy. However, I fail to see how that is fair when other, similary Star Trek simming organizations are allowed to have their pages remain. Furthermore, UCIP has somewhere between 200 and 500 members, although the recent decline in the popularity in Star Trek has diminished the numbers. This is a substantive group and may be of interest to the general public. Information about the organization can be obtained by emailing cinc@ucip.org.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.219.155 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Sango123 of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse The presence of other non-notable pages doesn't mean this one should be reinstated. Deleuze 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Concur with Deleuze. --Improv 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - non-notable. If the nominator would care to specify other non-notable cruft by name there is an easy way to correct the imabalance :) Doc Tropics 04:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - correct closure of AfD, also deletion of non-notable articles is the Wikipedia policy. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid per process and per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Contrary to the above, notability is a guideline not a policy, and "cruft" is not a fit reason for deleting anything, but this article was of almost zero interest to anyone not directly connected with its subject. The closing admin was in-process. Vadder 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The AfD was properly pursued. Additionally, though, "other X's are allowed" is never a particularly compelling argument, as the two items may not share much in common besides topic, and two wrongs don't make a right (but three lefts do). Geogre 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as the closing admin) for the reasons stated above. The AfD was given the proper amount of time for discussion, and there was clear consensus to delete. Sango123 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews

Bloger would like to dispute my closure of the above AfD, but since he is inexperienced with undeletion policy, I volunteered to submit a DRV on his behalf. The following is his first argument on my talk page:

The TTJ is regularly featured in the two Yiddish newspapers “Der Yid” and “Der Blot” that are the official newspapers of the two satmar factions (the Aron’s and Zalmons) and for that matter the most notable Yiddish newspaper with a combined readership of tens of thousands (not counting the forward which is considered modern by a lot of Hassidic Jews). The question is would it be considered a verification of TTJ works and structure if it is spelled out in the above newspapers?

If yes, I would be more than glad to present such writings and let the Yiddish speaking and reading editors here, confirm the content.

However I would need more time to do just that, since they don’t publish the newspaper on the web I would need to contact them, go to there office and get a hold of the articles.

Bloger 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He has since submitted a PDF (in Hebrew) which he says displays the notability of TTJ because it is mentioned in a notable publication, and provided a translation at User:Bloger/True Torah Jews notability. He has this to say about the PDF (here):

It’s an article that was printed in the satmar - Zalman Teitelbaum faction - newspaper Der Yid at the time of the Israeli election’s when the group TTJ under its Yiddish and Hebrew name “Natrina”(I’m awaiting) published a pamphlet with the teachings of the satmar (rabbi Joel Teitelbaum of blessed memory) against participating in the election’s.

No vote from me, as the original AfD closer. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse without prejudice: Essentially, the AfD's result was clear. Now, the reasoning for most of the delete voters was that there was an issue of verifiability. The creator of the article believes that he will be able to verify. In that case, the best course would be for him to recreate with a note on the talk page that the recreation answered objections to the previous AfD when he has the verification. Now, me, I think that a relist, even with verification, will fail, as I think that the voters would have moved from verifiability to notability. The author should work on the article in user space until he feels that he has verifiability and attesting to significance covered and then make it an article. In the meantime, though, this deletion was according ot guideline. Geogre 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse precisely as per Geogre. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - correct closure of Afd. Btw, I want to support nom's action to helpout new users. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I just want to make sure that Bloger feels like he's getting a fair shake. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - as per Geogre. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So I want to understand clearly, did I advance the case on verifiability, and I now have to make the case for notability?

Bloger 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sick Nick Mondo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick Nick Mondo

The decision of delete has led to the article causing problems among wrestling notability requirements as the wrestler in question, Nick Mondo, has had a DVD about his wrestling career released and is filming documentaries on wrestling. He is also, among the indy and hardcore wrestling scenes, considered especially notable. The article has then been pointed to as a sort of "if Nick Mondo wasn't worthy of an article then X isn't worth either". Another issue is the article already exists at Nick Mondo and can't be made into a redirect because it was protected. --- Lid 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge contents of Sick Nick Mondo into Nick Mondo and redirect. The existence of the article at Nick Mondo was not mentioned on the AfD, and as such it is reasonble to presume the voters in this low-participation AfD were not aware of it. Both "Nick" and "Sick Nick" articles contain assertions of notablity, but there are different ones such that I feel there is information to merge. I think a redirect from one to the other would be fine, I take the "do not redirect" comment in the afd to be referring to earlier suggestion that it should be redirected to Brownian motion. Redirects from nicknames are standard practice - see Category:Redirects from alternate names, I don't think the redirect will need protecting. Thryduulf 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Following Rossami's comments below about timing, which I admit I neglected to look at, I endorse the closure as valid at the time of closure, but additional information has been provided and there should be no prejudice against a sourced, notable article. Once the information has been merged, there should be no prejudice against a deletion nomination if it is still felt he is not notable enough. While an article that exists about this person, a redirect is apropriate, per my previous comments. If the article is deleted the redirect can be deleted per CSD R1 - the normal course of events. Thryduulf 08:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge anything useful into Nick Mondo. This information wasn't presented in the original AfD, and certainly seems to be a valid merge target. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure per Rossami's information. I obviously didn't look deeply enough into the timing of everything. Duh. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge - sometimes things slip through the cracks and this seems to be such case. Doc Tropics 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure - heh, I didn't think to actually look at dates<Wipes egg off face> Thanks to Rossami for a learning experience. Doc Tropics 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• The Sick Nick Mondo article was deleted as the result of an AFD decision on 16 May 2006 (and re-deleted on 26 May). The Nick Mondo article was first created on 17 June. The Nick Mondo article is therefore re-created content. (It could not have been mentioned in the AFD discussion because it did not exist at the time.) Reviewing the versions, I consider the newest version to be sufficiently different that it probably does not qualify for the speedy-deletion criteria. However, the core concern of the first deletion decision remains unanswered. I find no new evidence to convince me that the previous decision was obviously wrong. Endorse closure of the "Sick Nick" deletion discussion pending an immediate AFD discussion of the new version. If and only if the new version is kept, then undelete the old version and allow the redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Metamagician3000 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the original Sick Nick Mondo decision; should Nick Mondo come up for AfD I'm pretty sure it'd pass through, because in addition to his body of work in CZW, he's become a video game character, too. I'm adding links to the article now. Once Nick Mondo is AfD'd or not, there should either be a redirect from Sick Nick Mondo to Nick Mondo or the article currently in residence at Nick should be moved to Sick Nick. Try saying THAT three times fast.  RasputinAXP  c 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See above: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm agreeing with the close, and commenting on why I think it was valid (I did not vote at AfD but can see the deleted content). Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. --Improv 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per Sam Blanning above: NOT a vehicle for self-promotion. Fortunately Sam, reconstructive surgery can work wonders for damaged limbs. Doc Tropics 04:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Sam's arguments. The closer could have been a bit more tactful in writing up the decision but the decision is well within normal administrative discretion. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.

This user is interested in drugs.

This user is not interested in drugs.

Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just recreate it in userspace. DRV isn't necessary for that. See WP:GUS; it might even already be there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Userfy if not already userfied; Endorse closure if already userfied. jgp (T|C) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've posted the last three versions of this template before it was deleted. They're rather different from one another. Note the first links to a user category that probably ought to be deleted along with most user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though it would be nice if history can be preserved when it is being userfied. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering over 750 users link to this template, it would be nice to at least have a redirect of some sort if it is to be recreated in user space. The first version above is the correct one. --Pascal666 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. And re-point the existing links to the new location (perhaps per AWB?). CharonX/talk 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and put in the triage section at the bottom of TfD until user pages are modified by a bot. Ansell 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted from template space per T2 and German solution. Someone may userfy by all means per German solution, if that has not already been done. Metamagician3000 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore/Move to user space and then delete the template page or replace it with Template:GUS UBX to (after correcting links, of course). —Mira 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per the fact that this is not T1 and per Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion. -- Where 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS to preserve history. Though this userbox should not exit in template namespace any longer. Acceptable replacement of {{deletedpage}} is {{GUS UBX to}}. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS. Guess we have to cleanup and recover the wounded from some of the past battles. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy Will (message me!) 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, deleted by a revoked CSD. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and userfy per above. --Coredesat 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant [who has no contributions whatsoever other than his stance on this subject], Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon[ymous] comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.

  What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?

  And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Admin's action was correct. Comment - using charged words like 'asinine' does little to strengthen an argument. A more neutral phrase like "It seems unreasonable..." actually invites people to look more closely rather than smacking them in the face with it :) Doc Tropics 04:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. While we welcome facts from anyone, the discounting of opinions of anonymous and suspiciously new users is a long-standing practice. It is not meant to be punitive but it has proven to be a necessary defense against the frequent attempts we've had by vandals trying to game the system and to bias our decision-making processes. Rossami (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirt pudding

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding

• Undelete and comment The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Wikipedia obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. Baked Alaska).
• Endorse closure, keep deleted.There is a consensus—one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus—that recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is not comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in most comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back at least to 1921. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the WP:V and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports 1210 pages on Baked Alaska and six on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closing admin: I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding, and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A5. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks. There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's. Geogre 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Corect judgement of consensus in my view. I count 3 transwiki and delete, one transwiki (implied delete), my no vote, and one keep. That's a reasonably clear consensus to delete. Eluchil404 01:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Makharinsky

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Makharinsky

• Delte and comment. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a review for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. Interlingua ^talk 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (again) of self-evident vanispamcruftisement. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, Dezhnev (talk · contribs), is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, User:GOY2006, is also Makharinsky. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. Metros232 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse properly closed AfD. Keep deleted. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question. This page discussed at AFD, deleted, recreated twice (both times apparently by user:Dezhnev) and re-deleted twice. Since the nominator opened this discussion thread, the page has been created as a protected {{deletedpage}}. Is this discussion still relevant? Is anyone actually requesting the undeletion? Rossami (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar, the quoted result was keep, but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.

So Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD without prejudice. In this case I think the closing comment: "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting" seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. NoSeptember 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. Metamagician3000 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) Will (message me!) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus is probably right conclusion by the deleting admin but deleting the article this way and said it was a result of AfD is wrong. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This entry has now been recreated and redirected to Daily Kos by User:Hipocrite. I don't have issues with the action, but I have issues that the action was taken without/against consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The redirect isn't sufficient, imo, because that page doesn't contain the information from the blanked page (and shouldn't). If/when the page is recreated it will probably need to be protected from User:Armandoatdailykos, but that's another issue to take up later. Dori 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  DRV is not the place to pick the version of the article. I think people mean to say, undelete the history, let people edit the page, and start a discussion on the talk page to decide what the article should look like, or if it should be a redirect. NoSeptember 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I guess that's shorthand for "Unprotect so that it can be reverted to the last unblanked version". Reverting is not an admin job, unprotecting is. ~ trialsanderrors 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh? Reverting is not an admin's job? Perhaps I am misreading your post here... KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  I parsed that as, "any editor can do the reverting, once the article is unprotected, but it takes an admin to unprotect it. Reverting isn't an admin's job specfically." It's not a comment on what admins can and cannot do. · rodii · 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, rodii. ~ trialsanderrors 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mooted by recreation in appropriate version without GFDL violations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • False The minimum required is to undelete the history of this article, so that comments can be properly merged into "Daily Kos" when it is agreed as to what is proper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ??? What was the GFDL violation? ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

Overturn And Keep:As I stated in the dicussion for propsed deletion against the NN statement a(fter I figured out how to get there)I showed an excerpt of a NYT article that stated the band.It said: I have changed the page because look I just joined and still finding out what happens.For the non notable band issue I have an excerpt for the New York Times which states the band.(NYT Article):

Like MTV, it is starting to create stars that glow brightly within its own universe. The band Hollywood Undead, which did not exist three months ago, has achieved celebrity thanks to MySpace. "We were just a bunch of loser kids who sat around our friend's house all day, and we started making music and recording it on computer," one of its vocalists, Jeff Phillips, said.

About two months ago the group posted a page on MySpace decorated with pictures of all seven members disguised in hockey masks and other forms of concealment. They also included a few original songs, a fusion of heavy metal and hip-hop. "In a matter of weeks it got huge, and it kept on getting bigger and bigger," said Mr. Phillips, whose left earlobe was splayed open enough to accommodate a hollow ring the size of a wedding band.

"It's been maybe nine weeks, and we've had over a million plays. We have 60,000 people who listen to it every day. It's crazy. If you look at our page, it's like we're a huge band that's toured a hundred times."

Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract."

This can be found on their myspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogPHman (talk • contribs) ."

I didn't know half of the things people were stating as I am a new user.I KNOW THAT DOESN"T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO IGNORENCE BUT PLEASE ONE MISTAKE FORGIVE ME.Please recreate the article as I didn't mean to vandalize or create any problems.Thank you for your time.

• Relist:Had proven wrong the NN charge against the band NYT Article on Myspace BlogDogPHman 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• The correct link for the blog entry above is [37]. This is an article in the New York Times about Myspace generally which briefly mentions the band, not an article about the band itself. This is the fifth time an article has been created for this band, and it's been through AfD, with the consensus of "delete". There was considerable discussion of whether the band was notable because of its presence on Myspace, and the conclusion was that it wasn't. That conclusion might be worth re-examining, but we went through a full AfD back in April. And the band still hasn't actually issued an album, although they keep talking about doing so. I suggest leaving them deleted until they meet some WP:BAND criteria. Maybe someday they'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone without ever having issued their music on a physical record medium. But they're not there yet. --John Nagle 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This version in my opinion goes much further in adressing concerns of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall article quality, and it was deemed unfit for Wikipedia by an AfD consensus; I have no reason to suspect anything went wrong during the AfD, nor do I feel that this NYT article presents any claim of notability not formerly addressed in the AfD. In essence, Wikipedia exists to document bands and individuals that have already acheived fame, not to help bands acheive fame (as is MySpace's purpose). Unless some new evidence can be presented, I see no reason to restore. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with AmiDaniel's analysis. Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. I think the five previous AfDs pretty clearly prove consensus on this issue. Deleuze 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract." - in other words, they have zero records released. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, should be speedy deleted on sight. Extreme keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: At least this band makes its money online, so it makes sense that they'd believe that Wikipedia is a good place to increase visibility, but it isn't. Some MySpace bands are going to be huge, some became huge, but we should be behind the curve and inherent conservative and non-speculative, if we're a reference work at all. WP:MUSIC therefore requires records, record deals, and distribution (getting the platters in the Wal*Mart). When that happens, it will be time for the backward-reporting Wikipedia article. Geogre 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

16 June 2006

Sadullah Khan

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadullah Khan

The AfD on this biography received very few votes. In total, exactly two "delete" votes from registered editors (and one from an anonymous IP). I came across the AfD and article five days later than the other voters, and realized that although the article was badly written, it addressed a distinctly notable person who very easily passes both the "author test" and the "professor test". I voted "strong keep", and also cleaned up the article at least enough to more clearly indicate the notability of Mr. Khan. A version that I have further touched up (slightly) is temporarily at: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sk

In my comment, I specifically requested that the closing admin at least extend the vote, if not simply close it as "no consensus". Given that the registered editors at most split 2 del/1 keep, "no consensus" would be the right action even without the request. But given that there's is no evidence that the original 2 delete voters looked at the cleaned up article, a deletion just seems premature. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: at this point in the discussion, anon vandals added irrelevant comments. Now removed. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, given how few editors commented and how much work was done on the article during the AFD. -- Vary | Talk 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - closure was within discretion, and I'm not critical of it, but with so few votes and now a cogent challenge to the outcome, I think a further AfD with opportunity for a better debate is the safe way to go. Metamagician3000 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLE and MM3K ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reasonable notability has been established; articles deserves another chance. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I have no idea about the notability but I do feel the article deletion debate should have been resulted in "no consensus" --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, I nominated it. It was an oversight on my part not actually including a Delete. That would have made three registered users... and considering the wording of my nom, the admin may have just counted it as a delete vote anyway. If the person who asked for review has rewritten the article, then let him recreate it. I do not have a problem with him doing that, but I don't see a reason to overturn this AFD because IMO, the admin made the right decision at the time. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLe and MM3K. The article was significantly improved during the AfD to the extent the early votes can be discarded as out-of-date. Even without this, I would have either relisted or closed as no-consensus. Thryduulf 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - The rewrite is excellent, I have no question the subject is notable. I would have voted Overturn, but it only seems fair to invite a more general review since it did go through process once already. Good work LotLE, thanks for the effort. Doc Tropics 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

File:944 h.jpg

This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "Courtesy of Indiana University." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name? I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. --Jpbrenna 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted from Commons, and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at Deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually can now Will (message me!) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woa! Well, would you look at that! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Wikipedia Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. CharonX/talk 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• The image deletion is recent enough to make undeletion possible. I think the best action would be to contact User:Essjay (who deleted it), and make you case directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stone_Trek
• Overturn and Keep As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting WP:WEB, as it only needs to meet one of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [38], it was featured on G4TechTV [39], and even William Shatner plugs it on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at Newgrounds.com as well as StarLand.com, who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:WEB.

And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. MikeWazowski 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. Deleuze 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really asserting that the website for the Sci-fi Channel isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - Motor (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial works is the wording jeff. It's worded that way for a reason. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from outside the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - Motor (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - clearly meets WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in a new AFD (preferably) or Overturn and keep (per User:MikeWazowski's comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting WP:WEB that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. BigDT 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, WP:POINT accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
• The external links provided that supposedly meet WP:WEB did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that Site of the Week is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (Hahnchen) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Wikipedia articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. On G4TV.com, Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called plug by the All-Bran Man, which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive third from the bottom.
• As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of WP:WEB says "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - within discretion. Metamagician3000 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - Hahnchen 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Valid closure by deleting admin, no reason to overturn. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Hahnchen. — Mike • 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the mention on scifi.com does not meet WP:WEB. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - Nothing looks unusual or improper in AfD. ` LotLE×talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A spin-off of a spin-off cannot borrow the notability of the original: the cartoon version of "Joanie Loves Chachi" can't get "Happy Days"'s numbers. WP:WEB is not satisfied. Geogre 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber combat

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat
• Overturn and delete. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of WP:NOR — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it isn't a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
  • "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
  • "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
  • "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
  • "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
  • "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
  • "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
  • "It's interesting!"
  • "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
  • "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
  • "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
  • "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — Mike • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. Deleuze 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -R. fiend 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a Star Wars Insider ref and actual books Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? Kotepho 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, R. fiend seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - there was an obvious consensus to keep. MaxSem 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in WP:V, which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - this link in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own Star Wars Insider magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various Star Wars novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. MikeWazowski 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the quality of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — Mike • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[40] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[41], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[42], "More editing and cleanup can help."[43], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[44]. Also it should be noted that the nominator was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[45].
  Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, Yanksox ^(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. EVula 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - Motor (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. Kotepho 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. BryanG^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close. Properly closed based on the discussion. --JJay 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close per BryanG. —Mira 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. BigDT 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close followed policy.Geni 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per MikeW. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. Metamagician3000 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per consensus in AfD --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Original Research. --Improv 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —Mira 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to Wookiepedia, which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on fencing. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --John Nagle 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--Eloquence* 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Captainktainer * Talk 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. Barnas 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely add more references so that it doesn't end up here again. --tjstrf 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox (animator)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.

• Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Atromitos

Was speedily deleted, but after reviewing the history I cannot find the reason why. Tone seems to be inactive, so I'm bringing it here. Conscious 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Odd. User:MetroStar dumped a whole bunch of incorrect tags on it ({{copyright}}{{spam}}{{advertisement}}{{copyright}}{{delete}}!) without an edit summary in sight. Tone then deleted, probably in one of the occasional lapses of checking histories etc. I can find no evidence of copyright violation, and the circumstances are dubious to say the least, so I've restored and reverted. -Splash - tk 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, upon review, some large segments of Special:ContributionsMetroStar should not be trusted. -Splash - tk 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Close discussion, now undeleted by Splash. Sandstein 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Walk To Emmaus

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk To Emmaus
• Relist Only four editors commented on the article (3/1 for deletion) and there was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability. If the consensus is to endorse deletion I would appreciate a copy for my userspace, but idealy I think further discussion on AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• That is plenty to delete an article such as this, and there is no quorum for AfD. It was about some random "spiritual renewal program" that, at most, needed some mention in the article of the organisation that runs it for its 3 days [46], not the event of Biblical importance. Endorse deletion. -Splash - tk 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The organiization that runs it for it its three days Which one did you mean [47] [48] [49][50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] and that's just the communities in Texas that have their own web domains. What I would really like is for someone to explain to me more than just "nn delete". 10,000's of people have been on these reteats I think that makes them notable. Why do others think they are not? Eluchil404 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse it's enough - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• "There was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability"? There were no arguments presented for notability to discuss. None in the article, none in the AfD (Google searches and resulting hits are not a claim to notability, though Google can turn up reliable third-party sources, which can be), and none here so far. Endorse deletion at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 3 deletes, one redirect/cleanup. No serious arguments made either way. Deletion is acceptable, relisting for more input would have been acceptable, and anyone, including the nominator here, can do the redirect if they believe it appropriate. GRBerry 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - although this could usefully be recreated as a redirect to Emmaus--Aoratos 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually no, it should be redirected to Cursillo if anything, as it is the Methodist version of the program created because they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use the Cursillo name, among other things. It actually isn't a random religious thing, but as an offshoot of the Cursillo movement, it belongs in that article, or not at all. It is really not notable otherwise. It has nothing to do with actually "walking" or the town of Emmaus, so the above suggestion is illogical.pschemp | talk 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't illogical. I've no knowledge of the religious movement (it doesn't seem that notable - and others use the same name), however the phrase the 'walk to Emmaus' is notable as a common title for the pericope in Luke's narrative of the Resurrection. That's far more notable. Someone typing in 'walk to Emmaus' is much more likely to be looking for the material currently in the article Emmaus (or Resurrection appearances of Jesus) than this obscure group - so it should redirect there.--Aoratos 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Samuel Blanning and GRBerry for trying to explain. I'll try to track down some sources and create a better article. Any hints about what factors should go to notability: total participants, news coverage, web presence? Eluchil404 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard explanation for notability is Wikipedia:Notability. There are also eight specific topic guidelines and a number of essays or proposed guidelines linked in the navigation box on the right. The most relevant is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), but that is only a proposal in the process of forming consensus. I personally use a two part test - is there an explanation of why the topic is significant (a claim to notability) and is that claim verified in independent reliable sources? For independence, simple reprinting of press releases doesn't count, and neither do local program site websites. The first part of the test is enough to avoid speedy deletion, the second part is enough reason for me to keep in an AFD. GRBerry 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per GRBerry - the closing admin closed the AfD fairly. Kimchi.sg 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, handled justly. PJM 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks again to GRBerry for pointing me to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) which I had missed. Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? We don't need to hold a discussion of where it should redirect of DRV. Eluchil404 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus to delete, with 75% in favour. Seems like a fairly-dealt AFD. Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. No obvious reason to question sysop's judgement call. Nothing has changed significantly since the article was deleted that suggests that relisting would now give a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Per request, I've userfied the deleted content of this article to User:Eluchil404/Walk To Emmaus. If it should be decided, now or later, that the article should be restored, then the history of this page should be moved back into its original place. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within discretion. Metamagician3000 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006

Mending Wall

This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. Robertsteadman 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)

If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. Xoloz 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. Robertsteadman 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law as it applies today to items published today. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime. All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article. The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its copyright had already lapsed under the old law. It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Wikipedia is a violating the law. Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum. Prior to 1923, all published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law. Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer User:Brad Patrick. He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law. I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Wikipedia is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. Xoloz 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.

• Endorse closure. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not. I am compelled to wonder once again if User:Robertsteadman and User:Robsteadman are related. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide here. By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even if User:Robertsteadman were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited this source, a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! Xoloz 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Wikipedia's general understanding of copyright. The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to). Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own. Geogre 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and Project Gutenberg is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests. Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- SCZenz 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - how on earth did anyone even consider deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? Metamagician3000 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You did read the copyright discussion, right? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Wikipedia:Public domain was incorrect (which one user was). Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- SCZenz 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not discussing the merits of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. Metamagician3000 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

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

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.

• none currently listed

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.

• none currently listed

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 August 11}}</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 August 11}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 August 11|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 policy; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies 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".

20 June 2006

Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png

Can this be recovered for me?? I wish to use it in my personal sandbox. It was originally used on early versions of {{Template:WoW}}. --Sunholm(talk) 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Was that different from Image:Nuvola apps important.png? - Liberatore(T) 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Or even better Image:Nuvola apps important.svg. Anyway it was deleted back in October 2005 so it can't be undeleted (only images deleted after June 16 2006 can be undeleted). --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kinston Indians Players

AfD listed here as a group nomination for a series of minor league baseball players who play for the Kinston Indians, a Class-A affiliate of the Cleveland Indians. First things first, of those advocating delete, six incorrectly cited basic WP:BIO guidelines as the reason for deletion, although WP:BIO clearly states that those who play professional sports are deemed notable by the guideline. The discussion spilled over into the WP:BIO talk page, where the waters were further muddled. It's obvious, at this stage, that there's no consensus to delete minor league baseball player or professional ballplayers, so this should be overturned and closed as no consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP:BIO needs to change after that AFD, 13 deletes, 5 keeps one from the creator, valid AFD, endore deletion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The discussion at WP:BIO was promoted during the AfD, and very few people headed over to actually discuss it. I'm not convinced WP:BIO needs to change, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change it, either. Also, we don't vote count here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AFD, in process closure. None of the notability criteria are policy. WP:NN itself is only an essay, WP:BIO is a guideline. That the The Baseball Encyclopedia, a topic specific encyclopedia, doesn't see fit to find them worthy of an article is good evidence against our doing so. Discussion of modifying WP:BIO should occur on the talk page for it, I've put my two cents in there. GRBerry 16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As The Baseball Encyclopedia handles major league players, I have no clue why it would be cited here. They don't find them fit because they restrict it to major league players. Meanwhile, Baseball Prospectus's yearly guide covers major and minor league ball, and is praised by Billy Beane, Rob Neyer, and John Hunt, among others. You make the call, I suppose, but I think we got it dead wrong here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I don't see any procedural issues, and this is not the place to discuss the merit of the article. I don't have any problems if editors interpret "professional" as highest level in the sport. Most Class A players stock shelves to make ends meet. ~ trialsanderrors 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

AfD closed by User:Cyde as a delete. The discussion was refactored between new/socks and established users, where the subject of verifiability came up. As internet memes have been a very tenuous discussion as of now, with discussion at the proposed page not even sure what to with them, it was noted that this meme was different as the subject of the article has recieved some fairly non-trivial media coverage (MSNBC, CNet, New York Times). Thus, many of the rationales by established delete proponents concerning verifiability and notability were addressed. A request at Cyde's talk page was met with a somewhat terse dismissal to say the least, and still wasn't rooted in any sort of policy or guideline. So I'm bringing it here for review to be overturned and closed as keep, as it meets even the basic standards for notability and verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Discussion started 21:25 (UTC) 8 June. Refactoring occured about 13:15 (UTC) 9 June, based on edit history. Some of the comments were moved to the talk page in the refactoring, which wasn't immediately visible but was explained. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 for the talk page. GRBerry 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Cyde of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - Have you read those links you have mentioned? The NY Times article doesn't seem to mention the case at all and the other 2 are blogs. Sure you might say, it's the MSNBC blog, so everything it mentions is instantly notable. Not everything mentioned in fringe news articles are notable events, just as Snowspinner isn't notable, this kid (linked from the MSNBC blog) isn't notable nor is this kid. The close was valid, and whereas it's not the best of form to close an AFD that you vote on, it was still the correct action based on the arguments presented. - 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hahnchen (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Deleted. Take a look at the Internet Memes category list. How many held up, or were more than a brief passing story? How many have you even heard of? How many should be AfD'ed? When this story has been out there a year as specified in WP:MEME, or even six months, and people still remember it, then reopen the question of whether it deserves an article. Fan1967 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  I comment that WP:MEME, which is a proposal, does not currently have any reference to the passage of time, including the "one year" test noted above. The drop is recent, with an edit summary of "remove the classic definition per talk". Per the talk, this meme may itself have partially motivated it going away. GRBerry 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeek, hadn't seen that change. I would counter that this case is a good example of why we need such a clause. Look through the Keep comments in the AfD and see how many crystal-ballish comments are made about what the incident might mean, or how "I think there might be a real movement starting", or how it "will be an interesting case study", or how it "probably won't be forgotten." An encyclopedic article really needs to at least wait for the dust to settle. Fan1967 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The clause was poor for a variety of reasons, even before this AfD. Heck, the main complaint w/internet memes was the lack of third party sourcing (which is what somehting like The Juggernaut Bitch lacked before the movie), and we finally get one WITH third party sourcing and it's still bizarrely closed as delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, non-encyclopedic and non-notable. DRV isn't a second AFD ... the consensus on the original AFD was quite clear about this thing's deletion. --Cyde↔Weys 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Do not undelete. Do not keep undeleted. Do not keep it not deleted. Do keep not undeleted. Not not keep do undeleted? --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Result correct. (See, Cyde, I do ocassionally agree with your deletions.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

19 June 2006

UCIP

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UCIP

I would like to nominate the page UCIP for undeletion. The original contention for the deletion is that the subject is not noteworthy. However, I fail to see how that is fair when other, similary Star Trek simming organizations are allowed to have their pages remain. Furthermore, UCIP has somewhere between 200 and 500 members, although the recent decline in the popularity in Star Trek has diminished the numbers. This is a substantive group and may be of interest to the general public. Information about the organization can be obtained by emailing cinc@ucip.org.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.219.155 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Sango123 of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse The presence of other non-notable pages doesn't mean this one should be reinstated. Deleuze 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Concur with Deleuze. --Improv 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - non-notable. If the nominator would care to specify other non-notable cruft by name there is an easy way to correct the imabalance :) Doc Tropics 04:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - correct closure of AfD, also deletion of non-notable articles is the Wikipedia policy. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid per process and per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Contrary to the above, notability is a guideline not a policy, and "cruft" is not a fit reason for deleting anything, but this article was of almost zero interest to anyone not directly connected with its subject. The closing admin was in-process. Vadder 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The AfD was properly pursued. Additionally, though, "other X's are allowed" is never a particularly compelling argument, as the two items may not share much in common besides topic, and two wrongs don't make a right (but three lefts do). Geogre 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as the closing admin) for the reasons stated above. The AfD was given the proper amount of time for discussion, and there was clear consensus to delete. Sango123 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews

Bloger would like to dispute my closure of the above AfD, but since he is inexperienced with undeletion policy, I volunteered to submit a DRV on his behalf. The following is his first argument on my talk page:

The TTJ is regularly featured in the two Yiddish newspapers “Der Yid” and “Der Blot” that are the official newspapers of the two satmar factions (the Aron’s and Zalmons) and for that matter the most notable Yiddish newspaper with a combined readership of tens of thousands (not counting the forward which is considered modern by a lot of Hassidic Jews). The question is would it be considered a verification of TTJ works and structure if it is spelled out in the above newspapers?

If yes, I would be more than glad to present such writings and let the Yiddish speaking and reading editors here, confirm the content.

However I would need more time to do just that, since they don’t publish the newspaper on the web I would need to contact them, go to there office and get a hold of the articles.

Bloger 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He has since submitted a PDF (in Hebrew) which he says displays the notability of TTJ because it is mentioned in a notable publication, and provided a translation at User:Bloger/True Torah Jews notability. He has this to say about the PDF (here):

It’s an article that was printed in the satmar - Zalman Teitelbaum faction - newspaper Der Yid at the time of the Israeli election’s when the group TTJ under its Yiddish and Hebrew name “Natrina”(I’m awaiting) published a pamphlet with the teachings of the satmar (rabbi Joel Teitelbaum of blessed memory) against participating in the election’s.

No vote from me, as the original AfD closer. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse without prejudice: Essentially, the AfD's result was clear. Now, the reasoning for most of the delete voters was that there was an issue of verifiability. The creator of the article believes that he will be able to verify. In that case, the best course would be for him to recreate with a note on the talk page that the recreation answered objections to the previous AfD when he has the verification. Now, me, I think that a relist, even with verification, will fail, as I think that the voters would have moved from verifiability to notability. The author should work on the article in user space until he feels that he has verifiability and attesting to significance covered and then make it an article. In the meantime, though, this deletion was according ot guideline. Geogre 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse precisely as per Geogre. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - correct closure of Afd. Btw, I want to support nom's action to helpout new users. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I just want to make sure that Bloger feels like he's getting a fair shake. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - as per Geogre. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So I want to understand clearly, did I advance the case on verifiability, and I now have to make the case for notability?

Bloger 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sick Nick Mondo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick Nick Mondo

The decision of delete has led to the article causing problems among wrestling notability requirements as the wrestler in question, Nick Mondo, has had a DVD about his wrestling career released and is filming documentaries on wrestling. He is also, among the indy and hardcore wrestling scenes, considered especially notable. The article has then been pointed to as a sort of "if Nick Mondo wasn't worthy of an article then X isn't worth either". Another issue is the article already exists at Nick Mondo and can't be made into a redirect because it was protected. --- Lid 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge contents of Sick Nick Mondo into Nick Mondo and redirect. The existence of the article at Nick Mondo was not mentioned on the AfD, and as such it is reasonble to presume the voters in this low-participation AfD were not aware of it. Both "Nick" and "Sick Nick" articles contain assertions of notablity, but there are different ones such that I feel there is information to merge. I think a redirect from one to the other would be fine, I take the "do not redirect" comment in the afd to be referring to earlier suggestion that it should be redirected to Brownian motion. Redirects from nicknames are standard practice - see Category:Redirects from alternate names, I don't think the redirect will need protecting. Thryduulf 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Following Rossami's comments below about timing, which I admit I neglected to look at, I endorse the closure as valid at the time of closure, but additional information has been provided and there should be no prejudice against a sourced, notable article. Once the information has been merged, there should be no prejudice against a deletion nomination if it is still felt he is not notable enough. While an article that exists about this person, a redirect is apropriate, per my previous comments. If the article is deleted the redirect can be deleted per CSD R1 - the normal course of events. Thryduulf 08:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge anything useful into Nick Mondo. This information wasn't presented in the original AfD, and certainly seems to be a valid merge target. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure per Rossami's information. I obviously didn't look deeply enough into the timing of everything. Duh. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge - sometimes things slip through the cracks and this seems to be such case. Doc Tropics 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure - heh, I didn't think to actually look at dates<Wipes egg off face> Thanks to Rossami for a learning experience. Doc Tropics 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• The Sick Nick Mondo article was deleted as the result of an AFD decision on 16 May 2006 (and re-deleted on 26 May). The Nick Mondo article was first created on 17 June. The Nick Mondo article is therefore re-created content. (It could not have been mentioned in the AFD discussion because it did not exist at the time.) Reviewing the versions, I consider the newest version to be sufficiently different that it probably does not qualify for the speedy-deletion criteria. However, the core concern of the first deletion decision remains unanswered. I find no new evidence to convince me that the previous decision was obviously wrong. Endorse closure of the "Sick Nick" deletion discussion pending an immediate AFD discussion of the new version. If and only if the new version is kept, then undelete the old version and allow the redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Metamagician3000 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the original Sick Nick Mondo decision; should Nick Mondo come up for AfD I'm pretty sure it'd pass through, because in addition to his body of work in CZW, he's become a video game character, too. I'm adding links to the article now. Once Nick Mondo is AfD'd or not, there should either be a redirect from Sick Nick Mondo to Nick Mondo or the article currently in residence at Nick should be moved to Sick Nick. Try saying THAT three times fast.  RasputinAXP  c 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See above: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm agreeing with the close, and commenting on why I think it was valid (I did not vote at AfD but can see the deleted content). Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. --Improv 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per Sam Blanning above: NOT a vehicle for self-promotion. Fortunately Sam, reconstructive surgery can work wonders for damaged limbs. Doc Tropics 04:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Sam's arguments. The closer could have been a bit more tactful in writing up the decision but the decision is well within normal administrative discretion. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.

This user is interested in drugs.

This user is not interested in drugs.

Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just recreate it in userspace. DRV isn't necessary for that. See WP:GUS; it might even already be there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Userfy if not already userfied; Endorse closure if already userfied. jgp (T|C) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've posted the last three versions of this template before it was deleted. They're rather different from one another. Note the first links to a user category that probably ought to be deleted along with most user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though it would be nice if history can be preserved when it is being userfied. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering over 750 users link to this template, it would be nice to at least have a redirect of some sort if it is to be recreated in user space. The first version above is the correct one. --Pascal666 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. And re-point the existing links to the new location (perhaps per AWB?). CharonX/talk 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and put in the triage section at the bottom of TfD until user pages are modified by a bot. Ansell 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted from template space per T2 and German solution. Someone may userfy by all means per German solution, if that has not already been done. Metamagician3000 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore/Move to user space and then delete the template page or replace it with Template:GUS UBX to (after correcting links, of course). —Mira 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per the fact that this is not T1 and per Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion. -- Where 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS to preserve history. Though this userbox should not exit in template namespace any longer. Acceptable replacement of {{deletedpage}} is {{GUS UBX to}}. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS. Guess we have to cleanup and recover the wounded from some of the past battles. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy Will (message me!) 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, deleted by a revoked CSD. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and userfy per above. --Coredesat 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant [who has no contributions whatsoever other than his stance on this subject], Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon[ymous] comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.

  What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?

  And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Admin's action was correct. Comment - using charged words like 'asinine' does little to strengthen an argument. A more neutral phrase like "It seems unreasonable..." actually invites people to look more closely rather than smacking them in the face with it :) Doc Tropics 04:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. While we welcome facts from anyone, the discounting of opinions of anonymous and suspiciously new users is a long-standing practice. It is not meant to be punitive but it has proven to be a necessary defense against the frequent attempts we've had by vandals trying to game the system and to bias our decision-making processes. Rossami (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirt pudding

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding

• Undelete and comment The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Wikipedia obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. Baked Alaska).
• Endorse closure, keep deleted.There is a consensus—one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus—that recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is not comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in most comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back at least to 1921. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the WP:V and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports 1210 pages on Baked Alaska and six on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closing admin: I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding, and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A5. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks. There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's. Geogre 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Corect judgement of consensus in my view. I count 3 transwiki and delete, one transwiki (implied delete), my no vote, and one keep. That's a reasonably clear consensus to delete. Eluchil404 01:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Makharinsky

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Makharinsky

• Delte and comment. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a review for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. Interlingua ^talk 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (again) of self-evident vanispamcruftisement. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, Dezhnev (talk · contribs), is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, User:GOY2006, is also Makharinsky. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. Metros232 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse properly closed AfD. Keep deleted. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question. This page discussed at AFD, deleted, recreated twice (both times apparently by user:Dezhnev) and re-deleted twice. Since the nominator opened this discussion thread, the page has been created as a protected {{deletedpage}}. Is this discussion still relevant? Is anyone actually requesting the undeletion? Rossami (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar, the quoted result was keep, but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.

So Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD without prejudice. In this case I think the closing comment: "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting" seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. NoSeptember 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. Metamagician3000 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) Will (message me!) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus is probably right conclusion by the deleting admin but deleting the article this way and said it was a result of AfD is wrong. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This entry has now been recreated and redirected to Daily Kos by User:Hipocrite. I don't have issues with the action, but I have issues that the action was taken without/against consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The redirect isn't sufficient, imo, because that page doesn't contain the information from the blanked page (and shouldn't). If/when the page is recreated it will probably need to be protected from User:Armandoatdailykos, but that's another issue to take up later. Dori 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  DRV is not the place to pick the version of the article. I think people mean to say, undelete the history, let people edit the page, and start a discussion on the talk page to decide what the article should look like, or if it should be a redirect. NoSeptember 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I guess that's shorthand for "Unprotect so that it can be reverted to the last unblanked version". Reverting is not an admin job, unprotecting is. ~ trialsanderrors 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh? Reverting is not an admin's job? Perhaps I am misreading your post here... KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  I parsed that as, "any editor can do the reverting, once the article is unprotected, but it takes an admin to unprotect it. Reverting isn't an admin's job specfically." It's not a comment on what admins can and cannot do. · rodii · 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, rodii. ~ trialsanderrors 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mooted by recreation in appropriate version without GFDL violations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • False The minimum required is to undelete the history of this article, so that comments can be properly merged into "Daily Kos" when it is agreed as to what is proper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ??? What was the GFDL violation? ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

Overturn And Keep:As I stated in the dicussion for propsed deletion against the NN statement a(fter I figured out how to get there)I showed an excerpt of a NYT article that stated the band.It said: I have changed the page because look I just joined and still finding out what happens.For the non notable band issue I have an excerpt for the New York Times which states the band.(NYT Article):

Like MTV, it is starting to create stars that glow brightly within its own universe. The band Hollywood Undead, which did not exist three months ago, has achieved celebrity thanks to MySpace. "We were just a bunch of loser kids who sat around our friend's house all day, and we started making music and recording it on computer," one of its vocalists, Jeff Phillips, said.

About two months ago the group posted a page on MySpace decorated with pictures of all seven members disguised in hockey masks and other forms of concealment. They also included a few original songs, a fusion of heavy metal and hip-hop. "In a matter of weeks it got huge, and it kept on getting bigger and bigger," said Mr. Phillips, whose left earlobe was splayed open enough to accommodate a hollow ring the size of a wedding band.

"It's been maybe nine weeks, and we've had over a million plays. We have 60,000 people who listen to it every day. It's crazy. If you look at our page, it's like we're a huge band that's toured a hundred times."

Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract."

This can be found on their myspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogPHman (talk • contribs) ."

I didn't know half of the things people were stating as I am a new user.I KNOW THAT DOESN"T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO IGNORENCE BUT PLEASE ONE MISTAKE FORGIVE ME.Please recreate the article as I didn't mean to vandalize or create any problems.Thank you for your time.

• Relist:Had proven wrong the NN charge against the band NYT Article on Myspace BlogDogPHman 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• The correct link for the blog entry above is [73]. This is an article in the New York Times about Myspace generally which briefly mentions the band, not an article about the band itself. This is the fifth time an article has been created for this band, and it's been through AfD, with the consensus of "delete". There was considerable discussion of whether the band was notable because of its presence on Myspace, and the conclusion was that it wasn't. That conclusion might be worth re-examining, but we went through a full AfD back in April. And the band still hasn't actually issued an album, although they keep talking about doing so. I suggest leaving them deleted until they meet some WP:BAND criteria. Maybe someday they'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone without ever having issued their music on a physical record medium. But they're not there yet. --John Nagle 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This version in my opinion goes much further in adressing concerns of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall article quality, and it was deemed unfit for Wikipedia by an AfD consensus; I have no reason to suspect anything went wrong during the AfD, nor do I feel that this NYT article presents any claim of notability not formerly addressed in the AfD. In essence, Wikipedia exists to document bands and individuals that have already acheived fame, not to help bands acheive fame (as is MySpace's purpose). Unless some new evidence can be presented, I see no reason to restore. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with AmiDaniel's analysis. Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. I think the five previous AfDs pretty clearly prove consensus on this issue. Deleuze 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract." - in other words, they have zero records released. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, should be speedy deleted on sight. Extreme keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: At least this band makes its money online, so it makes sense that they'd believe that Wikipedia is a good place to increase visibility, but it isn't. Some MySpace bands are going to be huge, some became huge, but we should be behind the curve and inherent conservative and non-speculative, if we're a reference work at all. WP:MUSIC therefore requires records, record deals, and distribution (getting the platters in the Wal*Mart). When that happens, it will be time for the backward-reporting Wikipedia article. Geogre 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

16 June 2006

Sadullah Khan

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadullah Khan

The AfD on this biography received very few votes. In total, exactly two "delete" votes from registered editors (and one from an anonymous IP). I came across the AfD and article five days later than the other voters, and realized that although the article was badly written, it addressed a distinctly notable person who very easily passes both the "author test" and the "professor test". I voted "strong keep", and also cleaned up the article at least enough to more clearly indicate the notability of Mr. Khan. A version that I have further touched up (slightly) is temporarily at: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sk

In my comment, I specifically requested that the closing admin at least extend the vote, if not simply close it as "no consensus". Given that the registered editors at most split 2 del/1 keep, "no consensus" would be the right action even without the request. But given that there's is no evidence that the original 2 delete voters looked at the cleaned up article, a deletion just seems premature. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: at this point in the discussion, anon vandals added irrelevant comments. Now removed. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, given how few editors commented and how much work was done on the article during the AFD. -- Vary | Talk 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - closure was within discretion, and I'm not critical of it, but with so few votes and now a cogent challenge to the outcome, I think a further AfD with opportunity for a better debate is the safe way to go. Metamagician3000 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLE and MM3K ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reasonable notability has been established; articles deserves another chance. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I have no idea about the notability but I do feel the article deletion debate should have been resulted in "no consensus" --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, I nominated it. It was an oversight on my part not actually including a Delete. That would have made three registered users... and considering the wording of my nom, the admin may have just counted it as a delete vote anyway. If the person who asked for review has rewritten the article, then let him recreate it. I do not have a problem with him doing that, but I don't see a reason to overturn this AFD because IMO, the admin made the right decision at the time. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLe and MM3K. The article was significantly improved during the AfD to the extent the early votes can be discarded as out-of-date. Even without this, I would have either relisted or closed as no-consensus. Thryduulf 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - The rewrite is excellent, I have no question the subject is notable. I would have voted Overturn, but it only seems fair to invite a more general review since it did go through process once already. Good work LotLE, thanks for the effort. Doc Tropics 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

File:944 h.jpg

This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "Courtesy of Indiana University." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name? I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. --Jpbrenna 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted from Commons, and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at Deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually can now Will (message me!) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woa! Well, would you look at that! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Wikipedia Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. CharonX/talk 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• The image deletion is recent enough to make undeletion possible. I think the best action would be to contact User:Essjay (who deleted it), and make you case directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stone_Trek
• Overturn and Keep As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting WP:WEB, as it only needs to meet one of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [74], it was featured on G4TechTV [75], and even William Shatner plugs it on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at Newgrounds.com as well as StarLand.com, who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:WEB.

And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. MikeWazowski 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. Deleuze 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really asserting that the website for the Sci-fi Channel isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - Motor (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial works is the wording jeff. It's worded that way for a reason. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from outside the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - Motor (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - clearly meets WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in a new AFD (preferably) or Overturn and keep (per User:MikeWazowski's comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting WP:WEB that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. BigDT 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, WP:POINT accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
• The external links provided that supposedly meet WP:WEB did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that Site of the Week is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (Hahnchen) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Wikipedia articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. On G4TV.com, Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called plug by the All-Bran Man, which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive third from the bottom.
• As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of WP:WEB says "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - within discretion. Metamagician3000 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - Hahnchen 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Valid closure by deleting admin, no reason to overturn. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Hahnchen. — Mike • 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the mention on scifi.com does not meet WP:WEB. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - Nothing looks unusual or improper in AfD. ` LotLE×talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A spin-off of a spin-off cannot borrow the notability of the original: the cartoon version of "Joanie Loves Chachi" can't get "Happy Days"'s numbers. WP:WEB is not satisfied. Geogre 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber combat

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat
• Overturn and delete. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of WP:NOR — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it isn't a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
  • "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
  • "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
  • "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
  • "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
  • "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
  • "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
  • "It's interesting!"
  • "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
  • "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
  • "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
  • "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — Mike • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. Deleuze 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -R. fiend 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a Star Wars Insider ref and actual books Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? Kotepho 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, R. fiend seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - there was an obvious consensus to keep. MaxSem 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in WP:V, which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - this link in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own Star Wars Insider magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various Star Wars novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. MikeWazowski 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the quality of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — Mike • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[76] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[77], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[78], "More editing and cleanup can help."[79], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[80]. Also it should be noted that the nominator was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[81].
  Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, Yanksox ^(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. EVula 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - Motor (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. Kotepho 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. BryanG^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close. Properly closed based on the discussion. --JJay 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close per BryanG. —Mira 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. BigDT 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close followed policy.Geni 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per MikeW. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. Metamagician3000 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per consensus in AfD --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Original Research. --Improv 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —Mira 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to Wookiepedia, which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on fencing. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --John Nagle 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--Eloquence* 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Captainktainer * Talk 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. Barnas 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely add more references so that it doesn't end up here again. --tjstrf 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox (animator)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.

• Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Atromitos

Was speedily deleted, but after reviewing the history I cannot find the reason why. Tone seems to be inactive, so I'm bringing it here. Conscious 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Odd. User:MetroStar dumped a whole bunch of incorrect tags on it ({{copyright}}{{spam}}{{advertisement}}{{copyright}}{{delete}}!) without an edit summary in sight. Tone then deleted, probably in one of the occasional lapses of checking histories etc. I can find no evidence of copyright violation, and the circumstances are dubious to say the least, so I've restored and reverted. -Splash - tk 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, upon review, some large segments of Special:ContributionsMetroStar should not be trusted. -Splash - tk 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Close discussion, now undeleted by Splash. Sandstein 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Walk To Emmaus

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk To Emmaus
• Relist Only four editors commented on the article (3/1 for deletion) and there was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability. If the consensus is to endorse deletion I would appreciate a copy for my userspace, but idealy I think further discussion on AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• That is plenty to delete an article such as this, and there is no quorum for AfD. It was about some random "spiritual renewal program" that, at most, needed some mention in the article of the organisation that runs it for its 3 days [82], not the event of Biblical importance. Endorse deletion. -Splash - tk 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The organiization that runs it for it its three days Which one did you mean [83] [84] [85][86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] and that's just the communities in Texas that have their own web domains. What I would really like is for someone to explain to me more than just "nn delete". 10,000's of people have been on these reteats I think that makes them notable. Why do others think they are not? Eluchil404 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse it's enough - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• "There was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability"? There were no arguments presented for notability to discuss. None in the article, none in the AfD (Google searches and resulting hits are not a claim to notability, though Google can turn up reliable third-party sources, which can be), and none here so far. Endorse deletion at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 3 deletes, one redirect/cleanup. No serious arguments made either way. Deletion is acceptable, relisting for more input would have been acceptable, and anyone, including the nominator here, can do the redirect if they believe it appropriate. GRBerry 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - although this could usefully be recreated as a redirect to Emmaus--Aoratos 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually no, it should be redirected to Cursillo if anything, as it is the Methodist version of the program created because they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use the Cursillo name, among other things. It actually isn't a random religious thing, but as an offshoot of the Cursillo movement, it belongs in that article, or not at all. It is really not notable otherwise. It has nothing to do with actually "walking" or the town of Emmaus, so the above suggestion is illogical.pschemp | talk 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't illogical. I've no knowledge of the religious movement (it doesn't seem that notable - and others use the same name), however the phrase the 'walk to Emmaus' is notable as a common title for the pericope in Luke's narrative of the Resurrection. That's far more notable. Someone typing in 'walk to Emmaus' is much more likely to be looking for the material currently in the article Emmaus (or Resurrection appearances of Jesus) than this obscure group - so it should redirect there.--Aoratos 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Samuel Blanning and GRBerry for trying to explain. I'll try to track down some sources and create a better article. Any hints about what factors should go to notability: total participants, news coverage, web presence? Eluchil404 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard explanation for notability is Wikipedia:Notability. There are also eight specific topic guidelines and a number of essays or proposed guidelines linked in the navigation box on the right. The most relevant is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), but that is only a proposal in the process of forming consensus. I personally use a two part test - is there an explanation of why the topic is significant (a claim to notability) and is that claim verified in independent reliable sources? For independence, simple reprinting of press releases doesn't count, and neither do local program site websites. The first part of the test is enough to avoid speedy deletion, the second part is enough reason for me to keep in an AFD. GRBerry 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per GRBerry - the closing admin closed the AfD fairly. Kimchi.sg 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, handled justly. PJM 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks again to GRBerry for pointing me to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) which I had missed. Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? We don't need to hold a discussion of where it should redirect of DRV. Eluchil404 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus to delete, with 75% in favour. Seems like a fairly-dealt AFD. Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. No obvious reason to question sysop's judgement call. Nothing has changed significantly since the article was deleted that suggests that relisting would now give a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Per request, I've userfied the deleted content of this article to User:Eluchil404/Walk To Emmaus. If it should be decided, now or later, that the article should be restored, then the history of this page should be moved back into its original place. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within discretion. Metamagician3000 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006

Mending Wall

This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. Robertsteadman 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)

If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. Xoloz 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. Robertsteadman 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law as it applies today to items published today. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime. All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article. The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its copyright had already lapsed under the old law. It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Wikipedia is a violating the law. Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum. Prior to 1923, all published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law. Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer User:Brad Patrick. He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law. I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Wikipedia is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. Xoloz 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.

• Endorse closure. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not. I am compelled to wonder once again if User:Robertsteadman and User:Robsteadman are related. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide here. By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even if User:Robertsteadman were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited this source, a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! Xoloz 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Wikipedia's general understanding of copyright. The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to). Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own. Geogre 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and Project Gutenberg is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests. Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- SCZenz 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - how on earth did anyone even consider deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? Metamagician3000 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You did read the copyright discussion, right? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Wikipedia:Public domain was incorrect (which one user was). Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- SCZenz 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not discussing the merits of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. Metamagician3000 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

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

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 August 11}}</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 August 11}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 August 11|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 policy; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies 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".

20 June 2006

Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png

Can this be recovered for me?? I wish to use it in my personal sandbox. It was originally used on early versions of {{Template:WoW}}. --Sunholm(talk) 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Was that different from Image:Nuvola apps important.png? - Liberatore(T) 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Or even better Image:Nuvola apps important.svg. Anyway it was deleted back in October 2005 so it can't be undeleted (only images deleted after June 16 2006 can be undeleted). --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kinston Indians Players

AfD listed here as a group nomination for a series of minor league baseball players who play for the Kinston Indians, a Class-A affiliate of the Cleveland Indians. First things first, of those advocating delete, six incorrectly cited basic WP:BIO guidelines as the reason for deletion, although WP:BIO clearly states that those who play professional sports are deemed notable by the guideline. The discussion spilled over into the WP:BIO talk page, where the waters were further muddled. It's obvious, at this stage, that there's no consensus to delete minor league baseball player or professional ballplayers, so this should be overturned and closed as no consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP:BIO needs to change after that AFD, 13 deletes, 5 keeps one from the creator, valid AFD, endore deletion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The discussion at WP:BIO was promoted during the AfD, and very few people headed over to actually discuss it. I'm not convinced WP:BIO needs to change, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change it, either. Also, we don't vote count here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AFD, in process closure. None of the notability criteria are policy. WP:NN itself is only an essay, WP:BIO is a guideline. That the The Baseball Encyclopedia, a topic specific encyclopedia, doesn't see fit to find them worthy of an article is good evidence against our doing so. Discussion of modifying WP:BIO should occur on the talk page for it, I've put my two cents in there. GRBerry 16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As The Baseball Encyclopedia handles major league players, I have no clue why it would be cited here. They don't find them fit because they restrict it to major league players. Meanwhile, Baseball Prospectus's yearly guide covers major and minor league ball, and is praised by Billy Beane, Rob Neyer, and John Hunt, among others. You make the call, I suppose, but I think we got it dead wrong here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I don't see any procedural issues, and this is not the place to discuss the merit of the article. I don't have any problems if editors interpret "professional" as highest level in the sport. Most Class A players stock shelves to make ends meet. ~ trialsanderrors 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

AfD closed by User:Cyde as a delete. The discussion was refactored between new/socks and established users, where the subject of verifiability came up. As internet memes have been a very tenuous discussion as of now, with discussion at the proposed page not even sure what to with them, it was noted that this meme was different as the subject of the article has recieved some fairly non-trivial media coverage (MSNBC, CNet, New York Times). Thus, many of the rationales by established delete proponents concerning verifiability and notability were addressed. A request at Cyde's talk page was met with a somewhat terse dismissal to say the least, and still wasn't rooted in any sort of policy or guideline. So I'm bringing it here for review to be overturned and closed as keep, as it meets even the basic standards for notability and verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Discussion started 21:25 (UTC) 8 June. Refactoring occured about 13:15 (UTC) 9 June, based on edit history. Some of the comments were moved to the talk page in the refactoring, which wasn't immediately visible but was explained. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 for the talk page. GRBerry 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Cyde of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - Have you read those links you have mentioned? The NY Times article doesn't seem to mention the case at all and the other 2 are blogs. Sure you might say, it's the MSNBC blog, so everything it mentions is instantly notable. Not everything mentioned in fringe news articles are notable events, just as Snowspinner isn't notable, this kid (linked from the MSNBC blog) isn't notable nor is this kid. The close was valid, and whereas it's not the best of form to close an AFD that you vote on, it was still the correct action based on the arguments presented. - 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hahnchen (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Deleted. Take a look at the Internet Memes category list. How many held up, or were more than a brief passing story? How many have you even heard of? How many should be AfD'ed? When this story has been out there a year as specified in WP:MEME, or even six months, and people still remember it, then reopen the question of whether it deserves an article. Fan1967 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  I comment that WP:MEME, which is a proposal, does not currently have any reference to the passage of time, including the "one year" test noted above. The drop is recent, with an edit summary of "remove the classic definition per talk". Per the talk, this meme may itself have partially motivated it going away. GRBerry 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeek, hadn't seen that change. I would counter that this case is a good example of why we need such a clause. Look through the Keep comments in the AfD and see how many crystal-ballish comments are made about what the incident might mean, or how "I think there might be a real movement starting", or how it "will be an interesting case study", or how it "probably won't be forgotten." An encyclopedic article really needs to at least wait for the dust to settle. Fan1967 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The clause was poor for a variety of reasons, even before this AfD. Heck, the main complaint w/internet memes was the lack of third party sourcing (which is what somehting like The Juggernaut Bitch lacked before the movie), and we finally get one WITH third party sourcing and it's still bizarrely closed as delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, non-encyclopedic and non-notable. DRV isn't a second AFD ... the consensus on the original AFD was quite clear about this thing's deletion. --Cyde↔Weys 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Do not undelete. Do not keep undeleted. Do not keep it not deleted. Do keep not undeleted. Not not keep do undeleted? --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Result correct. (See, Cyde, I do ocassionally agree with your deletions.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

19 June 2006

UCIP

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UCIP

I would like to nominate the page UCIP for undeletion. The original contention for the deletion is that the subject is not noteworthy. However, I fail to see how that is fair when other, similary Star Trek simming organizations are allowed to have their pages remain. Furthermore, UCIP has somewhere between 200 and 500 members, although the recent decline in the popularity in Star Trek has diminished the numbers. This is a substantive group and may be of interest to the general public. Information about the organization can be obtained by emailing cinc@ucip.org.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.219.155 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Sango123 of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse The presence of other non-notable pages doesn't mean this one should be reinstated. Deleuze 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Concur with Deleuze. --Improv 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - non-notable. If the nominator would care to specify other non-notable cruft by name there is an easy way to correct the imabalance :) Doc Tropics 04:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - correct closure of AfD, also deletion of non-notable articles is the Wikipedia policy. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid per process and per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Contrary to the above, notability is a guideline not a policy, and "cruft" is not a fit reason for deleting anything, but this article was of almost zero interest to anyone not directly connected with its subject. The closing admin was in-process. Vadder 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The AfD was properly pursued. Additionally, though, "other X's are allowed" is never a particularly compelling argument, as the two items may not share much in common besides topic, and two wrongs don't make a right (but three lefts do). Geogre 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as the closing admin) for the reasons stated above. The AfD was given the proper amount of time for discussion, and there was clear consensus to delete. Sango123 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews

Bloger would like to dispute my closure of the above AfD, but since he is inexperienced with undeletion policy, I volunteered to submit a DRV on his behalf. The following is his first argument on my talk page:

The TTJ is regularly featured in the two Yiddish newspapers “Der Yid” and “Der Blot” that are the official newspapers of the two satmar factions (the Aron’s and Zalmons) and for that matter the most notable Yiddish newspaper with a combined readership of tens of thousands (not counting the forward which is considered modern by a lot of Hassidic Jews). The question is would it be considered a verification of TTJ works and structure if it is spelled out in the above newspapers?

If yes, I would be more than glad to present such writings and let the Yiddish speaking and reading editors here, confirm the content.

However I would need more time to do just that, since they don’t publish the newspaper on the web I would need to contact them, go to there office and get a hold of the articles.

Bloger 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He has since submitted a PDF (in Hebrew) which he says displays the notability of TTJ because it is mentioned in a notable publication, and provided a translation at User:Bloger/True Torah Jews notability. He has this to say about the PDF (here):

It’s an article that was printed in the satmar - Zalman Teitelbaum faction - newspaper Der Yid at the time of the Israeli election’s when the group TTJ under its Yiddish and Hebrew name “Natrina”(I’m awaiting) published a pamphlet with the teachings of the satmar (rabbi Joel Teitelbaum of blessed memory) against participating in the election’s.

No vote from me, as the original AfD closer. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse without prejudice: Essentially, the AfD's result was clear. Now, the reasoning for most of the delete voters was that there was an issue of verifiability. The creator of the article believes that he will be able to verify. In that case, the best course would be for him to recreate with a note on the talk page that the recreation answered objections to the previous AfD when he has the verification. Now, me, I think that a relist, even with verification, will fail, as I think that the voters would have moved from verifiability to notability. The author should work on the article in user space until he feels that he has verifiability and attesting to significance covered and then make it an article. In the meantime, though, this deletion was according ot guideline. Geogre 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse precisely as per Geogre. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - correct closure of Afd. Btw, I want to support nom's action to helpout new users. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I just want to make sure that Bloger feels like he's getting a fair shake. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - as per Geogre. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So I want to understand clearly, did I advance the case on verifiability, and I now have to make the case for notability?

Bloger 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sick Nick Mondo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick Nick Mondo

The decision of delete has led to the article causing problems among wrestling notability requirements as the wrestler in question, Nick Mondo, has had a DVD about his wrestling career released and is filming documentaries on wrestling. He is also, among the indy and hardcore wrestling scenes, considered especially notable. The article has then been pointed to as a sort of "if Nick Mondo wasn't worthy of an article then X isn't worth either". Another issue is the article already exists at Nick Mondo and can't be made into a redirect because it was protected. --- Lid 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge contents of Sick Nick Mondo into Nick Mondo and redirect. The existence of the article at Nick Mondo was not mentioned on the AfD, and as such it is reasonble to presume the voters in this low-participation AfD were not aware of it. Both "Nick" and "Sick Nick" articles contain assertions of notablity, but there are different ones such that I feel there is information to merge. I think a redirect from one to the other would be fine, I take the "do not redirect" comment in the afd to be referring to earlier suggestion that it should be redirected to Brownian motion. Redirects from nicknames are standard practice - see Category:Redirects from alternate names, I don't think the redirect will need protecting. Thryduulf 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Following Rossami's comments below about timing, which I admit I neglected to look at, I endorse the closure as valid at the time of closure, but additional information has been provided and there should be no prejudice against a sourced, notable article. Once the information has been merged, there should be no prejudice against a deletion nomination if it is still felt he is not notable enough. While an article that exists about this person, a redirect is apropriate, per my previous comments. If the article is deleted the redirect can be deleted per CSD R1 - the normal course of events. Thryduulf 08:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge anything useful into Nick Mondo. This information wasn't presented in the original AfD, and certainly seems to be a valid merge target. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure per Rossami's information. I obviously didn't look deeply enough into the timing of everything. Duh. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge - sometimes things slip through the cracks and this seems to be such case. Doc Tropics 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure - heh, I didn't think to actually look at dates<Wipes egg off face> Thanks to Rossami for a learning experience. Doc Tropics 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• The Sick Nick Mondo article was deleted as the result of an AFD decision on 16 May 2006 (and re-deleted on 26 May). The Nick Mondo article was first created on 17 June. The Nick Mondo article is therefore re-created content. (It could not have been mentioned in the AFD discussion because it did not exist at the time.) Reviewing the versions, I consider the newest version to be sufficiently different that it probably does not qualify for the speedy-deletion criteria. However, the core concern of the first deletion decision remains unanswered. I find no new evidence to convince me that the previous decision was obviously wrong. Endorse closure of the "Sick Nick" deletion discussion pending an immediate AFD discussion of the new version. If and only if the new version is kept, then undelete the old version and allow the redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Metamagician3000 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the original Sick Nick Mondo decision; should Nick Mondo come up for AfD I'm pretty sure it'd pass through, because in addition to his body of work in CZW, he's become a video game character, too. I'm adding links to the article now. Once Nick Mondo is AfD'd or not, there should either be a redirect from Sick Nick Mondo to Nick Mondo or the article currently in residence at Nick should be moved to Sick Nick. Try saying THAT three times fast.  RasputinAXP  c 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See above: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm agreeing with the close, and commenting on why I think it was valid (I did not vote at AfD but can see the deleted content). Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. --Improv 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per Sam Blanning above: NOT a vehicle for self-promotion. Fortunately Sam, reconstructive surgery can work wonders for damaged limbs. Doc Tropics 04:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Sam's arguments. The closer could have been a bit more tactful in writing up the decision but the decision is well within normal administrative discretion. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.

This user is interested in drugs.

This user is not interested in drugs.

Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just recreate it in userspace. DRV isn't necessary for that. See WP:GUS; it might even already be there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Userfy if not already userfied; Endorse closure if already userfied. jgp (T|C) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've posted the last three versions of this template before it was deleted. They're rather different from one another. Note the first links to a user category that probably ought to be deleted along with most user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though it would be nice if history can be preserved when it is being userfied. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering over 750 users link to this template, it would be nice to at least have a redirect of some sort if it is to be recreated in user space. The first version above is the correct one. --Pascal666 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. And re-point the existing links to the new location (perhaps per AWB?). CharonX/talk 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and put in the triage section at the bottom of TfD until user pages are modified by a bot. Ansell 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted from template space per T2 and German solution. Someone may userfy by all means per German solution, if that has not already been done. Metamagician3000 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore/Move to user space and then delete the template page or replace it with Template:GUS UBX to (after correcting links, of course). —Mira 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per the fact that this is not T1 and per Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion. -- Where 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS to preserve history. Though this userbox should not exit in template namespace any longer. Acceptable replacement of {{deletedpage}} is {{GUS UBX to}}. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS. Guess we have to cleanup and recover the wounded from some of the past battles. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy Will (message me!) 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, deleted by a revoked CSD. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and userfy per above. --Coredesat 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant [who has no contributions whatsoever other than his stance on this subject], Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon[ymous] comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.

  What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?

  And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Admin's action was correct. Comment - using charged words like 'asinine' does little to strengthen an argument. A more neutral phrase like "It seems unreasonable..." actually invites people to look more closely rather than smacking them in the face with it :) Doc Tropics 04:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. While we welcome facts from anyone, the discounting of opinions of anonymous and suspiciously new users is a long-standing practice. It is not meant to be punitive but it has proven to be a necessary defense against the frequent attempts we've had by vandals trying to game the system and to bias our decision-making processes. Rossami (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirt pudding

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding

• Undelete and comment The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Wikipedia obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. Baked Alaska).
• Endorse closure, keep deleted.There is a consensus—one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus—that recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is not comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in most comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back at least to 1921. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the WP:V and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports 1210 pages on Baked Alaska and six on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closing admin: I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding, and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A5. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks. There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's. Geogre 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Corect judgement of consensus in my view. I count 3 transwiki and delete, one transwiki (implied delete), my no vote, and one keep. That's a reasonably clear consensus to delete. Eluchil404 01:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Makharinsky

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Makharinsky

• Delte and comment. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a review for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. Interlingua ^talk 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (again) of self-evident vanispamcruftisement. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, Dezhnev (talk · contribs), is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, User:GOY2006, is also Makharinsky. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. Metros232 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse properly closed AfD. Keep deleted. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question. This page discussed at AFD, deleted, recreated twice (both times apparently by user:Dezhnev) and re-deleted twice. Since the nominator opened this discussion thread, the page has been created as a protected {{deletedpage}}. Is this discussion still relevant? Is anyone actually requesting the undeletion? Rossami (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar, the quoted result was keep, but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.

So Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD without prejudice. In this case I think the closing comment: "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting" seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. NoSeptember 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. Metamagician3000 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) Will (message me!) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus is probably right conclusion by the deleting admin but deleting the article this way and said it was a result of AfD is wrong. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This entry has now been recreated and redirected to Daily Kos by User:Hipocrite. I don't have issues with the action, but I have issues that the action was taken without/against consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The redirect isn't sufficient, imo, because that page doesn't contain the information from the blanked page (and shouldn't). If/when the page is recreated it will probably need to be protected from User:Armandoatdailykos, but that's another issue to take up later. Dori 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  DRV is not the place to pick the version of the article. I think people mean to say, undelete the history, let people edit the page, and start a discussion on the talk page to decide what the article should look like, or if it should be a redirect. NoSeptember 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I guess that's shorthand for "Unprotect so that it can be reverted to the last unblanked version". Reverting is not an admin job, unprotecting is. ~ trialsanderrors 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh? Reverting is not an admin's job? Perhaps I am misreading your post here... KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  I parsed that as, "any editor can do the reverting, once the article is unprotected, but it takes an admin to unprotect it. Reverting isn't an admin's job specfically." It's not a comment on what admins can and cannot do. · rodii · 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, rodii. ~ trialsanderrors 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mooted by recreation in appropriate version without GFDL violations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • False The minimum required is to undelete the history of this article, so that comments can be properly merged into "Daily Kos" when it is agreed as to what is proper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ??? What was the GFDL violation? ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

Overturn And Keep:As I stated in the dicussion for propsed deletion against the NN statement a(fter I figured out how to get there)I showed an excerpt of a NYT article that stated the band.It said: I have changed the page because look I just joined and still finding out what happens.For the non notable band issue I have an excerpt for the New York Times which states the band.(NYT Article):

Like MTV, it is starting to create stars that glow brightly within its own universe. The band Hollywood Undead, which did not exist three months ago, has achieved celebrity thanks to MySpace. "We were just a bunch of loser kids who sat around our friend's house all day, and we started making music and recording it on computer," one of its vocalists, Jeff Phillips, said.

About two months ago the group posted a page on MySpace decorated with pictures of all seven members disguised in hockey masks and other forms of concealment. They also included a few original songs, a fusion of heavy metal and hip-hop. "In a matter of weeks it got huge, and it kept on getting bigger and bigger," said Mr. Phillips, whose left earlobe was splayed open enough to accommodate a hollow ring the size of a wedding band.

"It's been maybe nine weeks, and we've had over a million plays. We have 60,000 people who listen to it every day. It's crazy. If you look at our page, it's like we're a huge band that's toured a hundred times."

Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract."

This can be found on their myspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogPHman (talk • contribs) ."

I didn't know half of the things people were stating as I am a new user.I KNOW THAT DOESN"T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO IGNORENCE BUT PLEASE ONE MISTAKE FORGIVE ME.Please recreate the article as I didn't mean to vandalize or create any problems.Thank you for your time.

• Relist:Had proven wrong the NN charge against the band NYT Article on Myspace BlogDogPHman 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• The correct link for the blog entry above is [109]. This is an article in the New York Times about Myspace generally which briefly mentions the band, not an article about the band itself. This is the fifth time an article has been created for this band, and it's been through AfD, with the consensus of "delete". There was considerable discussion of whether the band was notable because of its presence on Myspace, and the conclusion was that it wasn't. That conclusion might be worth re-examining, but we went through a full AfD back in April. And the band still hasn't actually issued an album, although they keep talking about doing so. I suggest leaving them deleted until they meet some WP:BAND criteria. Maybe someday they'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone without ever having issued their music on a physical record medium. But they're not there yet. --John Nagle 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This version in my opinion goes much further in adressing concerns of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall article quality, and it was deemed unfit for Wikipedia by an AfD consensus; I have no reason to suspect anything went wrong during the AfD, nor do I feel that this NYT article presents any claim of notability not formerly addressed in the AfD. In essence, Wikipedia exists to document bands and individuals that have already acheived fame, not to help bands acheive fame (as is MySpace's purpose). Unless some new evidence can be presented, I see no reason to restore. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with AmiDaniel's analysis. Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. I think the five previous AfDs pretty clearly prove consensus on this issue. Deleuze 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract." - in other words, they have zero records released. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, should be speedy deleted on sight. Extreme keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: At least this band makes its money online, so it makes sense that they'd believe that Wikipedia is a good place to increase visibility, but it isn't. Some MySpace bands are going to be huge, some became huge, but we should be behind the curve and inherent conservative and non-speculative, if we're a reference work at all. WP:MUSIC therefore requires records, record deals, and distribution (getting the platters in the Wal*Mart). When that happens, it will be time for the backward-reporting Wikipedia article. Geogre 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

16 June 2006

Sadullah Khan

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadullah Khan

The AfD on this biography received very few votes. In total, exactly two "delete" votes from registered editors (and one from an anonymous IP). I came across the AfD and article five days later than the other voters, and realized that although the article was badly written, it addressed a distinctly notable person who very easily passes both the "author test" and the "professor test". I voted "strong keep", and also cleaned up the article at least enough to more clearly indicate the notability of Mr. Khan. A version that I have further touched up (slightly) is temporarily at: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sk

In my comment, I specifically requested that the closing admin at least extend the vote, if not simply close it as "no consensus". Given that the registered editors at most split 2 del/1 keep, "no consensus" would be the right action even without the request. But given that there's is no evidence that the original 2 delete voters looked at the cleaned up article, a deletion just seems premature. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: at this point in the discussion, anon vandals added irrelevant comments. Now removed. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, given how few editors commented and how much work was done on the article during the AFD. -- Vary | Talk 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - closure was within discretion, and I'm not critical of it, but with so few votes and now a cogent challenge to the outcome, I think a further AfD with opportunity for a better debate is the safe way to go. Metamagician3000 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLE and MM3K ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reasonable notability has been established; articles deserves another chance. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I have no idea about the notability but I do feel the article deletion debate should have been resulted in "no consensus" --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, I nominated it. It was an oversight on my part not actually including a Delete. That would have made three registered users... and considering the wording of my nom, the admin may have just counted it as a delete vote anyway. If the person who asked for review has rewritten the article, then let him recreate it. I do not have a problem with him doing that, but I don't see a reason to overturn this AFD because IMO, the admin made the right decision at the time. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLe and MM3K. The article was significantly improved during the AfD to the extent the early votes can be discarded as out-of-date. Even without this, I would have either relisted or closed as no-consensus. Thryduulf 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - The rewrite is excellent, I have no question the subject is notable. I would have voted Overturn, but it only seems fair to invite a more general review since it did go through process once already. Good work LotLE, thanks for the effort. Doc Tropics 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

File:944 h.jpg

This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "Courtesy of Indiana University." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name? I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. --Jpbrenna 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted from Commons, and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at Deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually can now Will (message me!) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woa! Well, would you look at that! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Wikipedia Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. CharonX/talk 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• The image deletion is recent enough to make undeletion possible. I think the best action would be to contact User:Essjay (who deleted it), and make you case directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stone_Trek
• Overturn and Keep As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting WP:WEB, as it only needs to meet one of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [110], it was featured on G4TechTV [111], and even William Shatner plugs it on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at Newgrounds.com as well as StarLand.com, who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:WEB.

And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. MikeWazowski 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. Deleuze 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really asserting that the website for the Sci-fi Channel isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - Motor (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial works is the wording jeff. It's worded that way for a reason. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from outside the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - Motor (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - clearly meets WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in a new AFD (preferably) or Overturn and keep (per User:MikeWazowski's comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting WP:WEB that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. BigDT 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, WP:POINT accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
• The external links provided that supposedly meet WP:WEB did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that Site of the Week is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (Hahnchen) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Wikipedia articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. On G4TV.com, Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called plug by the All-Bran Man, which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive third from the bottom.
• As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of WP:WEB says "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - within discretion. Metamagician3000 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - Hahnchen 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Valid closure by deleting admin, no reason to overturn. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Hahnchen. — Mike • 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the mention on scifi.com does not meet WP:WEB. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - Nothing looks unusual or improper in AfD. ` LotLE×talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A spin-off of a spin-off cannot borrow the notability of the original: the cartoon version of "Joanie Loves Chachi" can't get "Happy Days"'s numbers. WP:WEB is not satisfied. Geogre 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber combat

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat
• Overturn and delete. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of WP:NOR — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it isn't a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
  • "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
  • "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
  • "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
  • "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
  • "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
  • "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
  • "It's interesting!"
  • "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
  • "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
  • "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
  • "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — Mike • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. Deleuze 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -R. fiend 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a Star Wars Insider ref and actual books Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? Kotepho 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, R. fiend seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - there was an obvious consensus to keep. MaxSem 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in WP:V, which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - this link in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own Star Wars Insider magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various Star Wars novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. MikeWazowski 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the quality of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — Mike • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[112] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[113], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[114], "More editing and cleanup can help."[115], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[116]. Also it should be noted that the nominator was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[117].
  Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, Yanksox ^(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. EVula 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - Motor (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. Kotepho 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. BryanG^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close. Properly closed based on the discussion. --JJay 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close per BryanG. —Mira 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. BigDT 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close followed policy.Geni 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per MikeW. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. Metamagician3000 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per consensus in AfD --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Original Research. --Improv 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —Mira 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to Wookiepedia, which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on fencing. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --John Nagle 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--Eloquence* 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Captainktainer * Talk 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. Barnas 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but definitely add more references so that it doesn't end up here again. --tjstrf 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox (animator)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.

• Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Atromitos

Was speedily deleted, but after reviewing the history I cannot find the reason why. Tone seems to be inactive, so I'm bringing it here. Conscious 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Odd. User:MetroStar dumped a whole bunch of incorrect tags on it ({{copyright}}{{spam}}{{advertisement}}{{copyright}}{{delete}}!) without an edit summary in sight. Tone then deleted, probably in one of the occasional lapses of checking histories etc. I can find no evidence of copyright violation, and the circumstances are dubious to say the least, so I've restored and reverted. -Splash - tk 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, upon review, some large segments of Special:ContributionsMetroStar should not be trusted. -Splash - tk 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Close discussion, now undeleted by Splash. Sandstein 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Walk To Emmaus

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk To Emmaus
• Relist Only four editors commented on the article (3/1 for deletion) and there was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability. If the consensus is to endorse deletion I would appreciate a copy for my userspace, but idealy I think further discussion on AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• That is plenty to delete an article such as this, and there is no quorum for AfD. It was about some random "spiritual renewal program" that, at most, needed some mention in the article of the organisation that runs it for its 3 days [118], not the event of Biblical importance. Endorse deletion. -Splash - tk 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The organiization that runs it for it its three days Which one did you mean [119] [120] [121][122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] and that's just the communities in Texas that have their own web domains. What I would really like is for someone to explain to me more than just "nn delete". 10,000's of people have been on these reteats I think that makes them notable. Why do others think they are not? Eluchil404 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse it's enough - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• "There was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability"? There were no arguments presented for notability to discuss. None in the article, none in the AfD (Google searches and resulting hits are not a claim to notability, though Google can turn up reliable third-party sources, which can be), and none here so far. Endorse deletion at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 3 deletes, one redirect/cleanup. No serious arguments made either way. Deletion is acceptable, relisting for more input would have been acceptable, and anyone, including the nominator here, can do the redirect if they believe it appropriate. GRBerry 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - although this could usefully be recreated as a redirect to Emmaus--Aoratos 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually no, it should be redirected to Cursillo if anything, as it is the Methodist version of the program created because they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use the Cursillo name, among other things. It actually isn't a random religious thing, but as an offshoot of the Cursillo movement, it belongs in that article, or not at all. It is really not notable otherwise. It has nothing to do with actually "walking" or the town of Emmaus, so the above suggestion is illogical.pschemp | talk 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't illogical. I've no knowledge of the religious movement (it doesn't seem that notable - and others use the same name), however the phrase the 'walk to Emmaus' is notable as a common title for the pericope in Luke's narrative of the Resurrection. That's far more notable. Someone typing in 'walk to Emmaus' is much more likely to be looking for the material currently in the article Emmaus (or Resurrection appearances of Jesus) than this obscure group - so it should redirect there.--Aoratos 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Samuel Blanning and GRBerry for trying to explain. I'll try to track down some sources and create a better article. Any hints about what factors should go to notability: total participants, news coverage, web presence? Eluchil404 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard explanation for notability is Wikipedia:Notability. There are also eight specific topic guidelines and a number of essays or proposed guidelines linked in the navigation box on the right. The most relevant is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), but that is only a proposal in the process of forming consensus. I personally use a two part test - is there an explanation of why the topic is significant (a claim to notability) and is that claim verified in independent reliable sources? For independence, simple reprinting of press releases doesn't count, and neither do local program site websites. The first part of the test is enough to avoid speedy deletion, the second part is enough reason for me to keep in an AFD. GRBerry 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per GRBerry - the closing admin closed the AfD fairly. Kimchi.sg 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, handled justly. PJM 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks again to GRBerry for pointing me to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) which I had missed. Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? We don't need to hold a discussion of where it should redirect of DRV. Eluchil404 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus to delete, with 75% in favour. Seems like a fairly-dealt AFD. Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. No obvious reason to question sysop's judgement call. Nothing has changed significantly since the article was deleted that suggests that relisting would now give a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Per request, I've userfied the deleted content of this article to User:Eluchil404/Walk To Emmaus. If it should be decided, now or later, that the article should be restored, then the history of this page should be moved back into its original place. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within discretion. Metamagician3000 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006

Mending Wall

This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. Robertsteadman 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)

If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. Xoloz 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. Robertsteadman 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law as it applies today to items published today. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime. All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article. The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its copyright had already lapsed under the old law. It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Wikipedia is a violating the law. Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum. Prior to 1923, all published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law. Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer User:Brad Patrick. He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law. I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Wikipedia is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. Xoloz 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.

• Endorse closure. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not. I am compelled to wonder once again if User:Robertsteadman and User:Robsteadman are related. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide here. By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even if User:Robertsteadman were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited this source, a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! Xoloz 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Wikipedia's general understanding of copyright. The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to). Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own. Geogre 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and Project Gutenberg is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests. Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- SCZenz 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - how on earth did anyone even consider deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? Metamagician3000 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You did read the copyright discussion, right? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Wikipedia:Public domain was incorrect (which one user was). Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- SCZenz 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not discussing the merits of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. Metamagician3000 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

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