Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 16

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

16 November 2006

Ashtree Primary School

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashtree Primary School (3rd nomination)

This article was kept as no consensus at a recent AfD. I have no idea how such a conclusion could have been made other than by mere vote counting. The expressed purpose of the "AfD is not a vote" mentality is that participants should give a rationale why the article should be kept or deleted. Comments expressed as votes, with no rationale given, are not counted, since AfD is not about counting who showed up. Ad hominem arguments that do not address the merit of the article in question fall into this category, especially if the AfD is not unanimous. Of the 10 keep comments, very few—acording to my estimation two (JYolkowski and Silensor who claim the sources are sufficient)—gave any argument why the article should be kept. Others claim that it meets policy like WP:V or WP:SCHOOL without citing why, or that the nomination was made in bad faith, which is a red herring, since it made a clear argument and had plenty of support from good faith editors. I'm not interested in entering the school debate, I'm more interested in this nomination because of the closure technique; I think it was a bad call.. Comments that provide no rationale should not be counted. Overturn. Dmcdevit·t 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. My reasons for keeping were rather explicit I thought, regardless of whether or not it was nominated by a sockpuppet. This is just venue shopping. Silensor 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No one has called your response into question. What does this have to do with the merit the closure decision? It was the mass of other votes without rationale that makes a "no consensus" decision a bad call. Dmcdevit·t 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure so basically any troll can come in... list something for AFD purely out of spite and we have to take it as a valid listing?!?!?!!??! The article as it stands meets our WP:SCHOOL guidelines, passes our WP:Verifiability guidelines, and is one of the better school stubs. All the delete arguments can be summed up as "per reasons of the afd lister" whereas the majority of keep votes had valid rationales (granted mine wasnt one of them). Overturning this afd result is basically a support vote for the "keep throwing shit at afd until its deleted" camp.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "the majority of keep votes had valid rationales"— can you give six such keep comments, then? This is meant to be nothing more than a support for reasoned rationale, which were not provided, not a deletion camp. Dmcdevit·t 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I will note that there were an awful lot of "per nom" votes in there based on the verifiability standard, which was quite easily dealt with by the keep voters, and a keep result would have also been logical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Shorter deletion discussion: "Doesn't meet WP:SCHOOL. Yes it does. No doesn't. Does too. Nope. Yes. No. Yup." etc. I don't see how this could be closed otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: despite claims above, WP:SCHOOL is neither a policy nor a guideline. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• WP:SCHOOL is irrelevant here. Thsi is an article which has been expanded beyond the usual pathetic stub, and sources appear to exist which rasie it above the generic. I would have advocated merging to the community, but I see no compelling reason to overturn this close. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Only a few of the keep arguments addressed the article itself - the rest discredited the nominator for being a sockpuppet (which was probably the case, but the AFD was deemed valid). As for guidelines, WP:SCHOOL is not a guideline, but WP:N is. No evidence of notability was presented, and the article is simply a summary of a report that all schools in the UK get (which does not make them notable), and just because an article is not a stub does not mean that it is automatically worthy of inclusion. --Coredesat 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. My personal preference would be to merge most of the smaller school-type articles, but this one was moderately decent and I would've opted to keep it had I the opportunity to weigh into the discussion. Having reviewed this particular debate, it is pretty evident that there was no clear consensus to delete, and some fair arguments for retention. Everyone knows that WP:SCHOOLS isn't a fully ratified guideline, but its a starting point in the right direction. RFerreira 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This listing is to consider the wisdom of the closure, which seems to have been performed as vote-counting. It has nothing to do with the actual reasons for deletion, as this is not supposed to be a re-fighting of the AfD. Dmcdevit·t 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Can we compromise and merge it? The article isn't that long and is mostly statistics. (Radiant) 10:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's probably a better idea than just deleting it outright, since there is mergeable content. Overturn and merge. --Coredesat 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • A reminder that keep in an AFD does not prevent a merge. No consensus even less so. There is no reason to overturn and merge, just go merge if that is the right solution. GRBerry 02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Alkivar and badlydrawnjeff. bbx 10:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I agree that this was a borderline call, and I'm not even sure myself whether I would have said "keep" or "merge" if I had been a participant in the AfD. But, the point of the debate here at Deletion Review isn't whether or not the article should be kept, but whether, based on the results of the discussion, that the admin made the proper call. For myself, after having read all of the comments, and factored in that the AfD was an obvious bad-faith nomination by a sockpuppet, I agree with the determination of "No consensus, defaulting to keep". --Elonka 19:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure per Badlydrawnjeff, but I think a merge would be a good idea. Grand Slam 7 21:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Seems well within admin discretion per Elonka. The article's claims of notability are at best weak, though. Would support a merge, unless somebody could expand it further. Shimeru 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse No evidence of abuse of discretion by closer. I wish I had faith that this closer used discretion and did more than count the !votes, but with no explanation of reasoning; I can't be sure they did. GRBerry 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure-would've happily voted delete on AfD myself, but this is not a revisit of AfD. Closing admin's determination of no consensus was clearly correct. Seraphimblade 08:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• This was a textbook no consensus outcome. After weighing out the arguments presented by all parties I found that no consensus had come about and closed it as such, and stand behind that decision. Merging is a solution I continually advocate discussing when it seems appropriate to do so, and does not require a xFD or DRV to follow. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Both Elephant

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Both Elephant

Both Elephant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both Elephant is a legitimate manufacturer of airsoft guns that are sold throughout the world, I believe that a deletion because of csd g11 (patent nonsense) is in error. RangerOfFire 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just so you're aware, G11 is for spam, not for nonsense. Reading the Google cache, it reads a little spammy, even if it isn't meant to be. If you recreate it with a few independent sources, people probably won't go after you with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• What Jeff said. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Apparently, the page is no longer listed on the cache. Being a legitimate business is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion. Please find some reliable sources such that you can demonstrate that the relevant notability criteria are satisfied. Also, please do comply with WP:AUTO. JChap2007 03:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar

Spanish Gibraltarians (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I would like to request this page to be undeleted. A copy of the deleted article is to be found on my talkpage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burgas00

• No vote was made on its content or name at the time of its deletion. The vote having been made on Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar which was completely different to Spanish Gibraltarians both in name and in content.
• The vote made on the AfD for Spanish Gibraltarians had one vote in favour of deleting - Gibnews (who is known for his POV political activism in Gibraltar related articles), and three votes against Error --Burgas00 (myself) and Ecemaml. See :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Originary_inhabitants_of_Gibraltar&action=edit&section=2

I cannot find the original article which was posted for deletion (by Gibnews) but it is important to say that the article was modified to the point that none of the original (both name and content) remained. The result however is that the new article was also deleted and is now protected from reposting. I called for a new vote, to which voters heeded, voting to keep, butNaconkantari, in my opinion, erroneously and prematurely erased the page.

• The article is NPOV, well sourced, provides only information which is absent on all other Gibraltar related articles and simply refers to a community of people (Gibraltarian Spaniards) explaining who they are and a bit of their history. No POV related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute on Gibraltar is even touched and thus is non-controversial. However, for User:Gibnews, the mere existence of this group of people is, in his eyes, offensive.

A copy of the deleted article is to be found on the talk page of the deleted article, albeit without its appropriate referencing.

--Burgas00 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn, relist procedurally This discussion was a mess, not in small part due to Burgas00's hapless refactoring, but I cannot see that the discussion in the blue box also covered Spanish Gibraltarians, which occurred in an unnoticed separate section below the main discussion. It wasn't part of the nomination and it wasn't enclosed in the blue box. In any case, I enclosed the discussion that happened after closure in a separate white box and protected the AfD for now. ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, I figured out what happened. This is AfD disruption, pure and simple. Endorse closure and protection. ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was discussed and its deletion agreed. The author attempted to save it by changing its name; the content remains substantivly the same if not worse. He has now reposted the article to the talk page to keep it alive. --Gibnews 00:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I would simply like to respond to this last post. The article has nothing to do with the original discussed. 0% of its original content remains and the name is different, so it is effectively 2 different articles. I have posted the article on the talk page, as explained, to make it easier for users to read it while this procedure of undeletion lasts. Thanks.--Burgas00 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regretably thats simply not the case, the article was offensive racist propaganda when it started and substantially the same, if not worse when it finished. The article title is an oxymoron, as Spain does not recognise dual nationality. If anyone really needs to see a copy, mail me.

The discussion here is about deletion and unofficial resurrection, not revisiting content, on that there was a clear consensus.

--Gibnews

See article on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burgas00

• Comment I'd like to see the content of the article, could it possibly be Userfied? - Francis Tyers · 17:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have the same problem. I am unable to express my opinion as requested unless I read this beforehand. Regards, Asterion^talk 19:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Asterion and Francis. The article is posted on my talk page. I put it on the talkpage of the deleted article but Gibnews got it speedy deleted. Apparently it is against wikirules to post material on a deleted page:-(. --Burgas00 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete: I personally cannot see any problem with the new article. Nonetheless, I do agree with FayssalF's comments left in your talk page regarding the need for references and so on. I also have problems understanding the reasoning behind the AfD, as POV is not a valid rationale indeed. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Restore there is nothing in this article that requires deletion. That said, it needs better references and some cleanup. - Francis Tyers · 14:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask user Gibnews to stop deleting or requesting speedy deletion of the copy of the article on my talk page. He already got it deleted from the talk page of the Spanish Gibraltarians and has now requested speedy deletion from my talk page (??) This seems like an attempt to disrupt the current process of undeletion. Thanks. --Burgas00 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would ask the author of that article to accept the consensus decision to delete it, and desist from re-publishing. Any administrator who needs to see it can do so.

The policy says: please note that it cannot be transwikied to WikiTravel [1] or Wikinews), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage

--Gibnews 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find that? Septentrionalis 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoah! That is a blatant misrepresentation of the opening text of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Read it again, and you will see it specifically says the article can be userfied. The predicate "cannot" ends at the closing parentheses, the relevant predicate for "user page" is "the article is then..." An impressively clever misuse of copy and paste, I'll have to remember that. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The only source in the copy on the userpage uses "Gibraltarian" only to describe residents of Gibralatar after it became British territory. The one incident of "Spanish Gibraltarian" is in quotes in the source, indicating that the source thinks the term is unusual, and it is explicitly described therein as an 1890s use for the 97% of Gibraltar residents that had never been to London. Valid AFD, no sourcing relevant to the potential article, no reason to undelete. GRBerry 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing was lost in the first deletion. I have now included some relevant sources all of which use the expression "Spanish Gibraltarian" (at least one for each of the 3 definitions of the term). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burgas00

I would also like to point out to GRBerry that it would be pointless to use the expression Spanish Gibraltarians before Gibraltar was conquered by Britain! It would be, so that you understand me, like saying American Newyorkers, or British Londoners! :-) In any case, the other sources do refer to pre-Utrecht Gibraltarians by this name. Thanks for your imput.

--Burgas00 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - Most arguments to delete were about POV. We do not delete articles because they are full of POV. It can be fixed. Indeed, AfD lasted no more than 5 days w/ only a few votes! -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - the article is inherently POV due to the title; 'Spanish Gibraltarian' is a non-standard and loaded term that is misused and misapplied to imply the people of Gibraltar are Spanish. There are Spaniards living in Gibraltar, but they are not Gibraltarian. Poles living in London do not automatically become British Poles, they remain Polish, or they change their nationality and then become British. There is no such thing as a Spanish Gibraltarian, as Gibraltar is not in Spain. AFD close was correct. Proto::type 13:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's interesting, there seem to be German-Britons, British Somalis, British Asians, and quite a few other Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. And of course the Polish American article doesn't seem to be saying that America is in Poland. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete:

Proto wrote: ...the article is inherently POV due to the title; 'Spanish Gibraltarian' is a non-standard and loaded term... And what about a change to "Descendants of Spanish Gibraltarians". The content is NPOV and sourced. If the source of the dispute is in the title, I suggest a more precise wording, because the content must be undeleted. Randroide 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. It's a fine article, the AfD was broken due to the article being heavily edited during the AfD, and even renamed, correcting some of the concerns, with most participants after the edit arguing to keep. It's also a political dispute. Fine - then we should document that there is such a dispute. [1] describes the term well. I also admit I was seriously non-plussed by User:Gibnews's creative copying and pasting of text in this debate above, but that doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall/Criteria

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall/Criteria

Talk:List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall/Criteria (edit | [[Talk:Talk:List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall/Criteria|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Talk subpage for List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall; CSD G8 does not apply. --Stratadrake 14:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, not a G8. Kusma (討論) 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, subpages are deprecated. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unless I'm missing something, subpages for talk pages are not only allowed but frequently used, for example, for archives and To Do lists. Preserving a set of criteria for adding to a list article seems like a legitimate use of a talk subpage to me. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, it's a talk subpage and wouldn't seem to violate subpage policy. --tjstrf talk 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment restored for its period here under review... I do not oppose its redeletion should this drv fail.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If subpages are expressly disallowed, then merge the contents into the parent talk page. End of discussion! RFerreira 04:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• PS: At risk of violating WP:POINT, let's not forget that this page is a subpage itself. ;) --Stratadrake 14:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, G8 does not apply since Talk:List_of_fiction_that_breaks_the_fourth_wall exists. Enochlau has been an admin for almost a year and ought to know better. -- nae'blis 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - yeh I see it was in error, sorry. enochlau (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stanton LaVey

Stanton LaVey (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanton LaVey

I would like to request that the artical for Stanton Zaharoff LaVey be undeleted. I apologize for taking off the "Speedy Deletion" tag when I re-wrote the new page. However, Mr. LaVey, I should note, has become the subject of attack and harassment from the organization his grandfarher founded; The Church of Satan. Memebers from that organization have been trolling the Internet for years in an attempt to try and silence Stanton from the public. The content that was on the new page was approved by Stanton himself, and in no way shape or form was the artical offensive, or predjudice. It stated the facts as they happened, and did not "point the finger" at anyone. Thank You for your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonlord66 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion of non-redirect revisions. Unanimous consensus that the subject isn't notable enough for an article; the deletion had nothing to do with some webdrama. No evidence compelling enough to overturn the AfD presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very obvious endorsement of deletion Seven delete opinions and zero keep opinions make this as valid an AfD closure as there can be. -- Kicking222 02:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by the phrase "subject isn't notable enough for an article". By your own standards, Stanton LaVey qualifies as having what you call a "cult following". If you want proof, I can give you the URL of his MySpace account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demonlord66 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 19 November 2006. Thank You.

• Endorse - dryly Yes, because we all know that mySpace is just the perfect place to verify notability. Why do I even read DRV anymore? Just hurts my head --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - valid closure. MySpace guarantees ZERO notability. Moreschi 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Let's preface this: this DRV request has nothing to do with the article proper, nothing to do with the administrator who deleted it, nothing really to do with the subject of the deleted article. Throw whatever biases you have out the window and actually look at what we're supposed to look at here.

Generally speaking, we do not up and delete talk pages of articles that have deletion discussion on them. CSD A8, which is what would govern this situation, is clear: The talk pages should not be deleted if "they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." The CSD explanations page goes further: The criteria "[d]oes not apply to talk pages that contain discussion useful for creating a legitimate article at that page or otherwise important for the encyclopedia." A discussion at my user talk page shows at least three admins having some issues with this deletion at the very least (and if I've misrepresented any of the three of you, I apologise in advance). .

Feel however you want to about the article or the people at the subject, or even me for all I care (you'll note very little input from me in the talk page history since the article's deletion). This, however, must be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Page is simply a troll magnet.--MONGO 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Untrue, but you're entitled to that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it deleted for the love of God How many times must we go through this? Curious as to how many AfDs, DRVs and RfAr's its gonna take before this subject is dropped? Ridiculous we're going through this again  Glen  14:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There's really only one reason this is being brought up right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Eh, like I said, didn't really seem to meet the criteria for G8 (speedy deletion of talk pages), no one is arguing that it did, the talk page really wasn't very trollish and did contain somewhat productive discussion towards creating an article that asserts meeting WP:WEB. The talk page was harmless. --W.marsh 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Question CSD G8 says "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." This is a Talk page of a page that doesn't exist, and its content was, I believe, all after the page's deletion. So how doesn't it qualify? Fan-1967 15:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• There was discussion about the deletion and the article's notability on the talk page following the deletion. This was all on the talk page, and thus is a talk page that "contain[s] deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I guess I interpret "deletion discussion" to mean "discussion that was actually involved in the deletion" as opposed to later complaints about it. Fan-1967 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's a fair interpretation, I suppose. Then again, I have my doubts that the policy was put in place to squash discussion of resurrecting a page, either, which would involve discussing the reasoning for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• The place for such discussion is here. Fan-1967 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not necessarily, and it's not like people have been allowing a full DRV lately anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, come on. ED shows up here regularly, and the discussions are pretty much the same every time. Fan-1967 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, they are, but we're sliding off topic. Certainly you don't interpret G8 to stifle any sort of discussion involving the resurrection of a deleted article, right? That doesn't really mesh with the subpage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, in this case G8 prevents out-of-process discussion of the resurrection of the page. You're always encouraging process. Process for restoring articles is to bring them here. Fan-1967 16:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and process allows for the discussion of the creation of such articles at those talk pages, per the policy. That's why I came here - the page was deleted out of process. To overturn the deletion of the article proper, you come here - the CSD policy - nor the deletion policy - does not prohibit such discussions that were deleted here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific as to what policy you're referencing? Fan-1967 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• The CSD policy. I've detailed the whole thing in my original statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per W.marsh. Kusma (討論) 15:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted for the next three months per CBD. Kusma (討論) 14:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if this ends up being undeleted...make sure whoever does the undeletion removes the following post from the article history...made by Ribonucleic at 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC). Otherwise I will, and you can take that to the bank.--MONGO 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Removing that post would not be enough. If I post a user's real name and address (or other such highly inappropriate and stalking information) on a talk page at 9:02, and another user reverts me at 9:05, and then various users make various posts at 9:07, 9:14, 9:18, and 9:43, all an admin has to do (after blocking me) is delete the page and restore everything except the 9:02 version. If I make such a post and then User A writes, "I'm sorry this came up" at 9:20, and User B writes "LOL" at 10:52, and User C makes a comment on a different thread on the same page at 17:14, and the page continues to be edited the next day, and the next, until someone actually takes the trouble to remove the offending post, then removing the edit from 9:02 will not be enough. It will simply appear in the history as if user A added my stalking post at 9:20, while forging my signature, and while adding "I'm sorry this came up" in his own name. In the case of the ED talk page, seven posts were made between Ribonucleic's stalking and MONGO's removal of the link at 23:59 on 7 November. I don't know whether most of the posters simply didn't click on the link and therefore didn't realize how inappropriate it was (we know from Miltopia's "LOL" that he did click on it) or whether they simply didn't think there was any need to take any action to protect a fellow Wikipedian against that kind of thing. If the latter, I must say I find it extremely disappointing. In any case, it seems likely that the page will be kept deleted, but if it ever is restored, it will not be enough to remove the offending post. The next seven will also have to be removed, up to and including Miltopia's post at 03:29 on 7 November. AnnH ♫ 11:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a limitation of the software. It has been said for a long time that deletion of an edit should leave a marker behind that avoids that sort of situation. In any case, deleting and restoring does not hide personal information from other admins. For true removal, you need WP:OVERSIGHT. Carcharoth 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Question. If this page were restored, would it actually result in any meaningful discussion? From what I've seen in the AfD, it looks like there were no non-self-referential citations. I'm concerned it'll just end up in a flamewar with accusations of corruption and a cabal being thrown around. If they do manage to find proper sourcing, I would imagine they would be able to collaborate on their own website rather than on this one.--Wafulz 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • From what I had read, there was some meaningful discussion. A lot revolved around the apparent growing popularity of the site, there were numerous links to news stories that referenced the site, and continued back and forth about how to make it at least meet notability standards. Don't use the AfD for much of anything, it was quite the trainwreck, this solely concerns the talk page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm at work right now, so I'll have to consider this and come back to it sometime tonight or tomorrow. --Wafulz 17:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it seemed like there was some ongoing discussion towards finding reliable sources. There was also a lot of "where did this article go?" stuff (despite all the information at the top of the page). It seems plausible that if reliable sources did emerge, and they were mentioned on the talk page, it might facilitate creation of an acceptable article that otherwise might not happen. It's really not that big of a deal though... the odds of this article coming back seem low at this point. --W.marsh 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)]
  • The closest I ever saw that came close was one ED sysop denying allegations and saying that no ED sysops are furries. But this sysop's statement has later been proven untrue. Anomo 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Talk page of deleted article, troll magnet. As far as meaningful discussion about re-creating the article goes, if I recall correctly it was deleted per ArbCom ruling, and isn't coming back until hell freezes over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't deleted via an Arbcom ruling, but rather an AfD trainwreck. I think the likelihood of it coming back is stronger than you think, although I wouldn't be the one to initiate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The formal deletion discussions were at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination). The exception to G8 doesn't refer to whining about G4s; it's for the ancient and obsolete practice of moving vfd subpages into the article's talkpage. —Cryptic 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfDs really have nothing to do with the content on the talk page, which falls within the exceptions of G8. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion What good does it serve? The deletion discussion is very well documented elsewhere. All we will be doing is constantly reverting trolling if we keep this for some wikilegal technicality. I notice that the nominator gives no argument as to why it is useful, only a procedural whine. We're not a Byzantine bureaucracy .--Doc^g 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What good does it serve? Perhaps the resurrection of an article that meets our standards, I dunno. Meanwhile, my "procedural whine" is entirely legitimate, givent aht this is about process and this action was, as usual, not within there. There hasn't been constant reversions of trolling on the page anyway, so that's a nonstarter. It's good to know so many admins are willing to abandon the basics here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This sad affair really is a litmus test for the credibility of the whole Wikipedia concept. It is possible that, in future years, it will be seen as the turning point in Wikipedia's history: the point when Wikipedia showed that it has the potentual to be far more dangerous than useful isn't trolling? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Erm,,,, hold on a moment, since I wrote this, not you, you should give me a credit for it, Zoe! And you obviously don't know the meaning of troll (maybe go see ED for some hints). Personally, until I stumbled by chance upon the talk page of ED's deletion, I had thought that Wikipedia was, at worst, a benign influence. However I now have serious doubts, and deep fears. So the whole affair was indeed a "litmus test" by my definition of its usage. I suppose maybe I was too innocent before, so it could also be called a "wake-up call" - or is that also troll-speak by Zoe's standards?Anyway, I have gained much enlightenment - for wikipedia the enemy is not just without (such as vandals who go around rewriting pages for ideological or religious reasons), but is also deep within. Meowy 00:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Move discussion to appropriate venue. I've never seen the talk page, so I have no clue what was on it. But if any two users were having a meaningful, consensual, good-faith discussion, then any deletion should be done in a way that doesn't inadvertantly stifle that discussion. If the talk page wasn't the right forum for that discussion, the content of that discussion should be moved to a more suitable location, so that the parties may continue their conversation there. Not knowing the content of the page or the CSD deletion rules very well, I have no position on whether the talk page itself should be deleted or not-- just do whatever ya'll normally do in such cases. BUT-- if the consensus is that it should be deleted, then I'd hope the participants in the conversation would be temporary allowed to see the deleted version in order to salvage those parts of the conversation they felt were productive and worth keeping, so that they could move the discussion to whatever the most appropriate forum is for that conversation. --Alecmconroy 19:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  as deleted it was one user accusing the entire project of breathtaking arrogance for daring not to have an article on this "culturally significant" website, the absence of which is apparently a litmus test for the success of the entire project. In other words, blatant trolling, and emphatically not covered by the exceptions to the CSD criterion. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  This is just false, JzG. As deleted, there were contributions from many users, including some productive discussion regarding just what would be required before an ED page could be recreated, and good avice that I was giving there indicating that anyone wishing to do such a recreation had better hold themselves to very high standards of Verifiability and No Original Research. Is is really better to wipe out that conversation? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  That's a definite possibility, Guy-- there are apparently a lot of very energetic people with very little respect for civility who are behind the ED site. But if the content of the page really was exclusively made up of blantant trolling, that should be handled through the usual behavior channels. If, however, there was any content that wasn't clearly, blatantly, and demonstratively in violation of wikipedia policy, then let it be rescued. My concern here, and since I'm blind to what the deleted page says it is merely a concern, but my concern would be tha the speedy delete might be used to instantly squelch a good-faith conversation amongst good-faith contributors who are talking about a subject our admins feel passionately about. Ask yourselves-- if this were the talk page of an article on some other website that hadn't attacked the people we care about, some site other than ED, would we be acting the same way? If you look in your heart and know the answer is "yes", then that's all I can ask of ya'll, and all I'd ever want to ask, you know? But, just be sure ya'll are acting rationally rather than emotionally. "You will know [the difference]. When you are calm, at peace. Passive. But beware-- Anger...fear...aggression." :) --Alecmconroy 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  Me, I am calm. MONGO, on the other hand, has been viciously attacked by the drama queens, and I can't say I blame him for taking a robust view of their continuing attempts to validate the existence of their tawdry website by getting it back on Wikipedia despite its being deleted and deletion reviewed not that long ago. I believe the words "fuck right off" would adequately summarise MONGO's views on an early re-creation. Mine too, for that matter. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  Right, well see-- that's kinda what I figured. I haven't the foggiest clue what the right answer is-- i've got admins I respect on both sides. I would just hope that any admin has gotten frazzled or too caught up in things take a break from admining these issues and "tag out", to let some of the more objective admins handle things-- there's certainly no shortage of admins who strongly believe in "Defend each other". No harm, no foul-- but when a player gets injuried, you pull him out of the lineup until he's healed. In a case like this, where I admittedly don't even know the issues or the policies, the whole thing comes down to whether the people in charge appear to be calm and collected, are being civil and are avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. If that checks out, then what can I do but sit by and say "I can't see anything, but you're looking good from here!". If however, I start to worry that maybe we're letting our collective mastadons get the better of us, then I try to pipe up and say "Are ya'll _really_ sure we should be doing this?" :) --Alecmconroy 00:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The Arbitration Committee has ruled that all mention of ED be removed from Wikipedia. If you don't like that, take it up with them. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, they didn't. They said links to the site should be removed. Big big difference, and your "as per ArbCom" isn't based within what they said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, Arbcom explicitly rejected the idea that there will be "No ED on Wikipedia, ever" when it was proposed. If two people were having a good faith discussion about the article (and lack thereof), then let them continue that discussion at wherever the appropriate place is. Or if they are demonstrably acting in bad faith, then use the appropriate disciplinary actions. But don't delete a good-faith discussion out from under someone just because you don't like the content of their conversation. --Alecmconroy 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • What part of Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. do you not understand? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The part that forbids any mention of ED, the part that specifies that the ED article will never be recreated under any circumstances, and the part that forbids any discussion of the merits/lack thereof of its recreation. I don't see anything in the case that says those types of communications are forbidden, and I see at least one instance in which Fred says the exact opposite of that. If we're going to run an encyclopedia, we have to be free to talk amongst ourselves. For example-- let me say,"I have not seen any evidence that makes me think we should recreate an ED article at this time". That is a true statement, accurately reflecting how I feel. Surely you don't meant to suggest that my expressing that opinion violates some policy of Wikipedia. Similarly, if other people, with the oppposite opinion, want to discuss it, that also cannot violate policy, unless their actions so egregious that they are demonstrably done in bad faith. --Alecmconroy 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Since the ArbCom has clearly said that any and all links to ED may be deleted at will, how would you expect an article to be recreated, since it would not be allowable to include a link to the subject of the article? And have you reviewed the deleted pages? It was full of nothing but zOMG, teh sysops are just censors, vandals, jealous, and it's the end of the world (literally). Not a constructive point amongst them. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

              This is false, Zoe. I made constructive points on that page, without once resorting to the word "ZOMG". In particular, near the bottom of the deleted page, I was giving ED supporters advice that they shouldn't try to recreate the page until such time as they can do so to a very high standard of Verifiability and No Original Research. Some even seemed receptive to that advice. Is that bad advice, or something that shouldn't be around for people to see when they inevitably start asking again, "why isn't there an ED article on Wikipedia?"? Please note that my suggestion is not that we undelete the talk page, but that we protect the page with a more useful template, essentially reiterating what I was telling them there, as I suggested below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

              • How do you make an article where you're not allowed to link to the subject matter, and yet still preserve your journalistic integrity? I haven't the foggiest-- that's why I argued so strenuously (yet belatedly) that the "No ED links, ever" policy was a short-sighted on. But clearly, Arbcom intends to figure something out if hell freezes over and ED becomes notable. Otherwise, they would have just said "No ED article, EVER. ED has moved from being 'On Notice' to being 'Dead to us'". That was, in essence, what was proposed, and it was rejected. And no, as you point out, I have no clue what's on the page, which is why I can only comment, not honestly vote. But, I do have indirect evidence that at least SOME of the content on the deleted page has merit, because a couple of well-respected editors have looked it over and suggested an undelete might be an order. If there really was nothing but obvious, blantant trolling on the page, then anyone with admin access and eyes ought to be able to instantly concur with you-- that they don't suggests that perhaps the blantant trolling might not be as blatant to some as it is to other. But see my comment to Guy above-- I'm not an admin, I can't see the facts, all I can do is suggest and hope that you guys are acting 100% calmly and rationally, rather than out of passion or retribution. If you know you're doing that, then that's all I can ask. --Alecmconroy 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
                • • Actually, that's a fascinating and excellent test of real notability. New York Times has really rather few links to the Times itself, and they could all, except the link to the Times OnLine itself, be replaced. Septentrionalis 06:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Extreme speedy keep deleted as per ArbCom. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the exception to CSD G8 for deletion discussion not logged elsewhere is for the sake of old Votes for Deletion discussions, which were formerly posted on the article's talk page. It is not an exception for "omg undelete fuckers" trolling. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - If a talk page is persistently used for trolling regarding a deleted article then it should be salted. --SunStar Net 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd agree if that were true in this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete them all, and redirect them somewhere to one spot - You all care so little about Jimbo. Whenever a controversial article is deleted, eventually someone locks the talk page when people complain there. The locker thinks, "Oh now by locking it nobody will complain." But what happens is that it goes to Jimbo's talk page! Brian Peppers already has flooded it and wasted his time. I've already seen Encyclopedia Dramatica been mentioned there during the time when all its talk pages were protected. Then there's the whole Gary Weiss + sock puppets stuff and it all gets removed, but then I find it on Wikipedia Review with all the sock puppets name and evidence given so hiding it here did not work and so then I see them talk and later I see the results of it on Jimbo's talk page! Anomo 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP DELETED — breeding ground for stalkers and trolls. AnnH ♫ 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, salt it, burn it and trample up and down on the ashes until we think of something even more unpleasant to do. There can be no productive discussion related to deletion or undeletion at that page, because the site is blacklisted as an attack site. They pressed the nuclear button, game over. Perhaps a redirect to dev/null per Anomo's wry comment above? Guy (Help!) 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Selective restore, rename - We generally like to keep deletion discussions around, on the theory that it might be useful at some point. It would be appropriate to restore the talkpage and move it to a subpage of the deletion discussion for safekeeping. --Improv 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Glenn S and others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I didn't say anything when the talk page was unsalted, because I figured we'd see how things went. How they went is that the page was a troll magnet, and the great majority of "discussion" on the page -- with the exception of one section describing some media coverage -- was simple flaming. It doesn't serve the interests of the encyclopedia for this page to exist at this time. Nandesuka 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted The trolls have enough pages at that site to post their garbage. No need to bring it here. Tbeatty 05:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Selective restore and rename per Improv. Some of this discussion could be useful if, in the future, Encyclopedia Dramatica becomes notable enough to document here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, NOTE that this is NOT what the exception of G8 is for. Rather, in old cases, deletion debate was held on a talk page (after that, it went to templates, then later VFD got started). These old debates should (arguably) be preserved (although arguably they're pointless now); post-deletion comments that the page should have been kept are not relevant. (Radiant) 10:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that Encyclopedia Dramatica (by virtue of Template:Deletedpage) explicitly encourages the existence of this talk page, and has done so for a long time. The talk page is the natural place to discuss poissible re-creation of a WP:SALTed article, and such pages should not be deleted unless they violate other policies. Kusma (討論) 12:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Once on a different page where the talk page was also salted, I substed {{deletedpage}} and edited that bit out, but for some reason {{deletedpage}} has to be transcluded. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If we do not want discussion on the talk page, subst'ing {{deletedpage}} and editing it (or providing an alternate version for cases like Brian Peppers where discussion is not wanted) is a good idea. Actually, I agree with CBD below that this DRV is a pointless waste of time, and have changed my vote accordingly. Kusma (討論) 14:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep deleted - Logically, there is no reason for this page to be deleted. By policy there is no reason for this page to be deleted. Per the ArbCom ruling there is no reason for this page to be deleted. However, it seems perfectly clear that if this page is not kept deleted it will continue to be a source of contention between users who feel the deletion was unjustified and those who feel it was proper. There are a few dozen violations of civility policy just in the discussion above and likely only more of the same the longer this topic appears in any form. Is that right/fair/a reasoned way to decide things? No, but it is the reality. Unless we are prepared to start blocking everyone who fails to 'assume good faith', keep the discussion 'civil', and 'avoid personal attacks' (which includes half a dozen admins above) this is going to be an ongoing source of disruption. It is clear that no re-creation of this article is going to be allowed to happen any time soon. Thus, the continued existence of the talk page cannot achieve any positive result. Let it rest for some time. Tell proponents to gather relevant media mentions and the like elsewhere. And then try again in a few months when there may be some possibility of the case being judged on the merits rather than emotion. --CBD 13:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now. The deletion and review are still relatively fresh, and unfortunately I think this page won't do anything other than attract trolls and personal attacks, ultimately culminating in a lot of disruption of Wikipedia. I agree pretty well with the argument above- it's better to just let it all chill, and if they can find some sources, then let them. After all, their website is a Wiki too- it's not like they can't collaborate over there rather than over here. In a few months, if and only if they can make a legitimate case, we can let them. This is an encyclopedia, so it's not like having information on this website is absolutely crucial at this very moment. --Wafulz 17:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as talk pages are supposed to discuss edits to an article. If the article is deleted, there is no need for a talk page. And yes, it is a troll magnet. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep—It's unfair to delete a talk page of an article and protect it when it is the location for discussion on the possible recreation of the article. There's no harm in keeping it, unless people can provide more specific arguments rather than "it's a troll magnet". --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 04:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm really disappointed, I've only seen a very few number of comments to delete it that didn't involve irrelevant comments that don't address the actual concerns from the creator of the DRV, badlydrawnjeff. I hope that all concerns can be addressed before this is closed. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 04:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The comments do address the issue. It doesn't appear though that you understand what the issue is. The ultimate question is "What is best for the encyclopedia?" This article historically disrupts the objectives of the encylcopedia. This disruption substantially outweighs any benefit that this article provides. "Troll magnet" is a shorthand for saying it's not worth it. The article on Bush is also a troll magnet but it is tolerated because of the value it provides. The ED talk page provides so little value for so much trouble it should simply be deleted and salted from recreation. If you want to preserve the talk page discussion, copy it over to ED. --Tbeatty 05:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Just because ED happens to be a wiki is no reason for the discussion to continue there. Its policies are vastly different than Wikipedia's so discussion there would be difficult and, considering ED isn't allowed to be linked to, I don't see how it's practical to force Wikipedians who want to discuss the article to have to go to ED to do so. There's also the fact that it would be difficult for interested users to find, while if it is on the talk page all you have to do is click on the "Discussion" link to talk about it. I do understand the issues and a few users did attempt to address the them, but have yet to do so completely (see above, especially comments by badlydrawnjeff). I'm not sure if you actually read the original argument for keeping it since you said, "This article historically disrupts the objectives of the encylcopedia. This disruption substantially outweighs any benefit that this article provides." I would suggest you read it. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 05:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • So which is it? Do you think the talk page should be kept because it preserves a discussion or because people will contribute to a talk page with no article to discuss? By your comments it seems you want the discussion page back to continue a discussion on a non-existent article. To what end? There is no reason to have endless discussion about a deleted article. It defeats the purpose of the encyclopedia. Tbeatty 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - troll magnet, in the same way as Talk:Genmay was deleted. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?)} 13:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary undelete to allow relevant discussion to be moved (not cut and pasted) to a relevant location, probably a subpage of one of the original deletion discussions (remembering to add a link from the original discussion to the archive of the "talk page deletion discussions"). This would involve moving the whole page, and then deleting it all at the new location and restoring only the relevant revisions. Then redelete the original talk page and keep salted. This sounds complicated, but it isn't. I'd be happy to help do this (where I can), as I hate to see people decide to delete something because proper tidying up is too much hassle. Carcharoth 17:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Constructive deletion/recreation discussion could continue at/be moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica for example, much as it did for the recent MfD on Esperanza. See Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza. Carcharoth 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I like the idea, but I'm not sure it's possible, by keeping certain revisions and not others, to keep only the constructive content. For instance, it was quite recent in the history that I was suggesting to some people there that, if they want an ED article, then they'd better hold themselves to extremely strict standards of verifiability, and wait until the article can be written that way before trying to write it again. That's not trolling, and it's not bad advice either - it's advice calculated to prevent further eruptions of this issue until such (possible) future time that there's enough verifiable content to write an article. Nevertheless, the versions which contain this advice also include the rest of the page, including trolling. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The talk page is for discussing the article and there is no article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you read the deletion template? Maybe you should. It's right there, at the bottom. Or you could at least read a few of the arguments for keeping the talk page before seeing the words, "Encyclopedia Dramatica," and thinking, "I have to make sure it's deleted and quick! It's an attack site, with TROLLS!" Here's the first paragraph for you in case you don't want to scroll up, "this DRV request has nothing to do with the article proper, nothing to do with the administrator who deleted it, nothing really to do with the subject of the deleted article. Throw whatever biases you have out the window and actually look at what we're supposed to look at here." I'd say I was surprised an administator would make a comment like this, but then I'd be lying. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 01:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The template says "Restoration can be discussed on the talk page or at Deletion Review". And since the talk page isn't available, here we are. If one really disregards the subject of the article, then see Radiant's comment... All other orphaned articles that don't have the deletion discussion on the page are deleted under G8. --Interiot 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that this page will be kept deleted, based on the numbers apparent in this discussion. Since the {{deletedpage}} template does direct users to the talk page, which is now also deleted, could we agree to include a note below the template on the deleted-and-protected talk page explaining to future inquirers why the talk page is deleted? Maybe we could even direct them where to talk about any future notability that may arise, in case the website becomes more notable and article-worthy, despite its attacks on Wikipedians, kind of like Wikitruth (an actual attack site) is? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - seeing as the edit history is complicated, and preserving attributions may not be possible, can we at least: (1) copy the contents and manually edit out the bad stuff and place this edited version containing the good stuff at a new location; (2) make a note in the edit summary and on the talk page as to where the material came from (so admins can trace the page history back to the deleted version if need be). That would ensure that the bad stuff stays deleted, and the good stuff stays. Carcharoth 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Seriously, see Talk:Limecat. Note the main article is salted and wow all the comments!!! (I am hoping for some replies to this comment, too). Anomo 13:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's a pretty ridiculous talk page. One possible solution occurs to me for such talk pages, which were attached to articles that were deleted despite their popularity as internet phenomena. We could protect the page with a politely worded box at the top explaining (a) our inclusion criteria, (b) that AfD is not a vote, and (c) just what would be required for that subject to have a Wikipedia article, namely non-trivial coverage in multiple independent published sources. It would be like an alternative {{deletedpage}}, just for this type of talk page. Then we don't provide a troll-magnet, because the page is protected, but we do allow for any future serious researcher to create an acceptable article if it ever becomes possible to do so, and we even head off spurious DRVs by laying out just what kind of homework would need to be done. How does that sound? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  Or we could stop deleting otherwise notable articles, but that's asking too much sometimes...d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  "Non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent published sources," Jeff. If you've got it, for Limecat or ED, show it to me, and I'll write the article. The trick is to hold yourself to a high standard of independent verifiability; then you're above reproach. When the last ED DRV was happening, there were no such sources (at least I saw none), hence, no article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  Again, GTB speaks wisdom. Having an article is about more than just sheer notability, site hits, or visibility. A controversial article which lacks reliable sources can be deleted-- even if it happens to be more notable than other less-controversial/more-reliably-sourced articles. Rybczynski theorem may be far less notable than ED, but we can all agree what page on the obscure math theorem should look like, because we have a reliable soure describing it. --Alecmconroy 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. The deleted page template specifically says to discuss stuff on the talk page. Restoring the talk page doesn't mean restoring the actual article, which should stay deleted as I don't think it's notable enough. G8 doesn't apply as there's significant deletion discussion on the talk page. If there's bad revisions in the history, they should be manually edited out. If undeletion is out of the question, the discussion should at least be restored to a different area. Voretus^talk 17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "deletion discussion" = old VfDs, which were moved to the talk page back before the days of AfD subpages. Nothing more. Chris talk back 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The principle of keeping worthwhile content when throwing out unecessary content still applies. The deletion debates are kept because they should be. Talk pages often contain stuff that is relevant to other talk pages (and admittedly should have been copied to those other talk pages). Deletion is a very blunt instrument when it comes to talk pages. An article is meant to be a single coherent page. Talk pages often aren't. Usually,when deleting small, unsourced bits of rubbish, the accompanying talk page doesn't contain an awful lot. When deleting pages that have been around a while, several archives of talk page may develop and have stuff that should, really, be kept. How should such cases be handled? This is what badlydrawn jeff is trying to get at, I think, and I would urge that this wider issue be taken up elsewhere and properly discussed, away from the influence of an emotionally laden article. Carcharoth 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Radiant. --Interiot 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted until the end of time - I suppose it isn't enough that this pack of vandalistic trolls has already gone after MONGO in the most horrific possible fashion. BDJ basically says "it was deleted while there was still discussion going on! Horror!" What possible discussion could there be?! You are basically making a WP:POINT with this DRV. You know full well that if the article is recreated it will be nothing but a smoking vandaliszed wreck. Restoring the talk page will have the same effect. Comparing this to Esperanza is also pointless since Esperanza-based discussion was in reference of how to move forward. For all the talk of removing bad stuff from the article, pray tell what is the so-called good stuf an article on ED would contain? ED can be summed up as an inarticulate and immature attack site in the spirit of LJ Drama. There is no reason for the article to be here -- and no reason for a vandal attracting talk page about an article to be here. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Elaragirl. There is no good reason for even a single morsel of this dreck to remain. Moreschi 21:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per MONGO and Elaragirl. Also, it always is an issue for me to see the nominator badger just about every comment. Speaks to an agenda beyond what has been stated. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's a pretty nasty assertion there. God forbid I ask people to, you know, follow the process. Shame on you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to agree. Whenver I see your name it's always involved in something I feel is out of process. Like keeps for crap in XfD...or this, for example. And reading your tortured reasoning in talk pages and debates makes it difficult to buy that you're doing this to respect the process or out of any idea that restoring this amusment park for vandals talk page is somehow good for Wikipedia. If it looks like someone is being pointy, then they probably are. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what else to say except that you apparently don't know me that well. For Doug to say something so grossly improper when I, to my knowledge, have never as much as encountered him, however, is another thing entirely. Meanwhile, I can certainly point out the true "pointy" thing in this debate, but I've largely left myself out of it in recent days since it's obvious that being proper has nothing to do with the result of this one. Regardless, such unfounded accusations about me specifically aren't appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If I may try and calm thing down a bit here, I can confirm, having encountered Jeff standing up for process elsewhere, that this is in all likelihood just the principle of the thing, with no hidden agenda. Responding to others' comments is sometimes needed. Generalising that to an accusation of 'badgering' really doesn't help. Can we concentrate on the issues at hand, rather than discuss Jeff's debating style, or even the debating style and attitude of me or Doug or Elaragirl? If you must continue that sort of discussion, please take it to your user pages. Thanks. Carcharoth 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to vouch for Jeff's good faith. He happens to seriously believe in process, in a way that may place him in the minority around here, but I've never seen him do anything but work for the best of Wikipedia as he sees it. When we take such pains to insist that these discussions are "discussions" and not votes, it seems odd to criticize someone for trying to actually discuss with the other participants. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll accept that Jeff may not have any other agenda beyond what is stated. My endorsement of the deletion wasn't based on Jeff's questioning, but on the arguments presented. This is, however, a deletion related to a rather charged ArbCom case, so my poorly worded statement regarding the appearance his actions creates is not entirely baseless. I'll assumed good faith and strike my comment regarding a hidden agenda. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I just found it rather curious that, when seeing a discussion started by an editor that (as far as I can recall) you've never really encountered before but have an inkling of an idea surrounding a conflict he was somewhat involved with, your first thought was ulterior motives and agendas. Even when called on it by two people plus myself, you still can't bring yourself to say you migh even be wrong on it, even hedging that your opinion is "not entirely baseless," even with zero evidence to the contrary. I hope you understand why I'm more than a little peeved right now. It would be one thing if I've been in the middle of issues with you, but it's solely another entirely to automatically assume bad faith, and then claim you're assuming good faith with that addendum. That's all I'm going to say about this issue, but I hope you get something out of this that you'll be able to use in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per Elaragirl, MONGO and Glen S. I honestly can't see how restoring it could possibly benefit anyone. riana_dzasta 09:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - The dubious benefit of keeping around some small vestiges of the deletion debate are far outweighed by the negatives of just having this thing around. --Cyde Weys 22:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Request for clarification - BDJ asserts that the talk page should be recreated since the talk page "that contain(ed) discussion useful for creating a legitimate article at that page or otherwise important for the encyclopedia.". The general consensus seems to be that a) there is no way to create a legitimate article -- indeed, that no legitmate article could possibly exist, and that b) furhter discussion was simply amplifing rancor over the deletion, which a vocal minority diagreed with. Badlydrawnjeff hotly dissented with the closing of various AfD's and DRV's (even getting blocked for it once after reverting a close to DRV). I'm interested, considering that consensus indicates that there's nothing left to discuss and that consensus HERE seems to be that the entire argument is more of a refusal to accept reality than anything else, what Badlydrawnjeff sees as the process/policy being violated. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  I can't speak for BDJ, but I can address what I see as certain understandable inaccuracies in your post, Elaragirl. Regarding your point (a), it may currently be impossible to create an acceptable article about ED, but this is a question about sources, and as new sources come to light, it may turn out that ED will have received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent publications. If that happens, then it will be possible to write a Wikipedia article about it. There are sites that really are attack sites, such as Wikitruth, which nevertheless have articles here because they satisfy our notability criteria.

  Regarding (b), it's true that most of the discussion going on there amounted to impotent complaining in unhelpful terms. There was at least one conversation in which people were trying to be realitsic about just what it would take to create an acceptable article about ED. I was participating in that discussion, and noticed it missing when it was deleted. I thought this unfortunate, because I thought it was a useful discussion, and at least one "ED troll" had begun to agree with me that it's better to lay off trying to recreate the article until some future time that it can be done in a way that fully complies with WP:V and WP:NOR, even by strict standards.

  My suggestion is not that the page be restored, but that the {{deletedpage}} message be replaced with something more helpful, indicating why the page was deleted, where it's been discussed, and just how much homework would be required before anybody should bother trying another DRV. This would be immensely more helpful than what we have now, which basically invites future flare-ups of this issue by hiding from curious passers-by the details of why they shouldn't even bother asking until the sources come into existence. Also, there are other deleted talk pages where such a message would be equally useful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• While I should know better than to take the bait here, since consensus can change and process was decidedly abandoned in favor of other things in the original deletion, I see no reason to continue to abandon process to try and allow another vocal minority with personal stake in the matter to make it so the article that probably should have never been deleted in the first place never reappears again. I do not expect that the community at large will come around on the larger issue of the article anytime in the near future, but I did have an expectation that the community would instead see the value in allowing people todiscuss the possibility of recreation in good faith. Unless an admin follows strength of argument as opposed to numbers when closing this unfortunate debacle, it seems like we're just caving in again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  GTBacchus, that might be a good idea. Badlydrawnjeff, I think that is the central problem of this premise. I do not think you are acting in bad faith, nor am I trying to bait you. I am merely a sarcastic, acerbic and aggressive person by nature. I merely think you are not really considering the results of your actions, or the subject of the article you wish to recreate, and the way the community might view it. I also think (and I can be WRONG -- I am still very new) that restoring the talk page will simply create a focal point for people to complain about the deletion of the article, and that the recreation of the article would create more disruption than it's worth. I never thought I'd actually say this, but I have to suggest that WP:IAR should be utilized here, since disrupting the community of (let us say) one small group of editors to appease another small group of editors really does not improve the Wikipedia or enhance the community. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  Because I don't care to rerun the ArbCom case or the AfD, let's just say that there's a significant amount of nuance and detail that goes beyond the simple results. At the end of the day, I care about one thing here, and that's the general improvement of the encyclopedia, and I don't think we're serving the encyclopedia well right now with this particular situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Query - what happens to the talk page of a deleted page if that page is recreated at some point in the future? Is the normal process to just create a new talk page and start from scratch? In this particular case, I would have thought that if sources showing sufficient notablity come to light, or the subject of the article becomes more notable, then the previous article and the talk page could be relevant in some ways. Please understand that I am asking about the general principle here. Try and apply this to a page where there has been no trolling, attacks, etc. Carcharoth 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yesterdog

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yesterdog

Yesterdog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lack of concensus

Those that voted "keep" weren't particularly good with the markup, but it was still a 5 against 4 vote. Notable with those voting "keep" is that by and large they weren't regular editors, however they all cited living in the region. As a semi-regular editor and someone who lived in Western Michigan for several years (though not for the last 5) I would tend to agree that the place is a regional icon. Quoting from GRNow:

It seems as if every city has that one signature spot where locals insist must be visited before leaving town. For Grand Rapids, that place is Yesterdog. Located in the artsy urban neighborhood of Eastown, the inspiration for 'Dog Years' in the American Pie movies has been slinging up hot dogs for thirty years.

Such sums things up well. It's probably only restaurant in the circa 1 million Grand Rapids metro area that I'd make this claim for. Scott.wheeler 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure This was a completely valid deletion. Everyone who !voted delete was an established user, and all but one of the keep !voters were anonymous IPs. Being the inspiration for a restaurant in a movie (or series of movies) does not create nor confirm notability. Hell, the cafe at my college was the inspiration for "Central Perk" on Friends, and you don't see me writing an article about it. There was no valid reason to keep the article, which is why almost all of the regular WP editors moved to delete it. -- Kicking222 14:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Without any implied criticism of the closing, it was a perfectly fine closing. It is perfectly valid to ignore comments by anons without evidence, and it is not the obligation of a closing admin to personally research each and every article. That said, the article itself should be restored, as it does seem notable. The anons had valid points, they just didn't know how to document them. Google hits are mostly anonymous blogs, but not quite: the rest are still a slew, and mention with reverence. Here: Blog, but from Washington Post editor; High school paper in Wyoming; Northwest Airlines vacation guide calls it "famous"; Grand Rapids TV; Aquinas College "welcome to students" PDF calls it "iconic"; MetroTimes Detroit calls it "a city institution" AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• No vote. I probably would have voted "Keep" on this, but it does look like the AFD was valid. Perhaps it can be merged somewhere? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Really? Actually on reinspecting it the count was 4 to 4 since the nominator explicitly disclaimed a preference. Granted, 3 of the 4 keep votes were anonymous, but they don't seem sock-puppet-ish. Scott.wheeler 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion If it were a particularly good article about a barely notable place I'd say ok to restore, but this is a crappy article about a barely notable place. Intro, menu, opening hours (!), and a quickshot picture of hotdogs ready to be served. No notability even asserted. Besides, it's already covered in the Grands Rapids section in Wikitravel, where it probably belongs. No prejudice against a well-written new article though. ~ trialsanderrors 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Closure seems fine. I really really really hope that someone creates a WikiDining soon (maybe as a branch of WikiTravel) so that the fun new trend in creating articles for specific reviewed-but-unencyclopedic restaurants, fast food shacks, and street food vendors can be shipped off to their nice new home away from Wikipedia. TAt the moment, this is higher on my wishlist than even someone creating WikiList (where people can create obscure lists to their heart's content) Bwithh 06:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)