Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted. As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

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

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• Category:Political divisions of the United States and its Talk. This was apparently deleted last year without going trhough the usual CfR process, and the history would be useful in the current CfR debate. --William Allen Simpson 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. If you couldt tag it for speedy or ping my talk once you're done. -Splash^talk 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 May 24}}</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 May 24}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 24|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

4 April 2006

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin1

Administrators shouldn't be deleting RFCs on themselves, even when the process is completed. Not only does it set a bad precedent, but it's important to keep RFCs available for archival purposes (just as we do with AFDs and all other such debates). 168.30.204.197 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• We specifically allow for -- in fact, expect -- the deletion of user RFC's that aren't certified. That's the case here. The RFC itself was originally deleted in July of 2005. However, it was temporarily undeleted in September for use in an arbcom case. The arbcom case closed long ago, so it was appropriate to re-delete the original RFC. I see no conflict of interest; any admin could have deleted the RFC at any time - it was just overlooked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I was one of the original strong opposers to deleting uncertified RfCs, but since it is now policy, I will endorse based on this policy regardless of whether I agree with it or not. The fact remains that SlimVirgin's RfC was uncertified and was explicitly restored temporarily until the arbitration case was over (The restored RfC's header read: RESTORED TEMPORARILY AS EVIDENCE IN AN ARBITRATION CASE Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor Fred Bauder 13:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)). The arbitration case was over, so the deletion was entirely appropriate. In hindsight, asking another admin to delete might keep up the appearance of impartiality, but I honestly think SlimVirgin was well within her rights to delete the uncertified RfC. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per jpgordon --FloNight ^talk 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Standard practice; as jpgordon. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and see this as such an obvious call that there was no reason for Slim to need to ask another admin to do it. JoshuaZ 18:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per jpgordon. Guettarda 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per jpgordon. Xoloz 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Deathphoenix. Thryduulf 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article

This template debate was closed and deleted by User:Raul654, but I don't think there is a consensus to delete. The final numerical results stand at 32 for delete, 28 for keep, and 4 for neutral/comment, so it should have been closed as no consensus. The differing opinions were all spread throughout the discussion, with little domination of keep or delete in any place. -- King of Hearts ^talk 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• IT was deleted because the template flatly violates policy, and the people who created it (and voted not to delete it) don't seem to care (and have not, in point of fact, even tried to offer an explination for why it doesn't violate policy) Raul654 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine, and I'm voting with you, too. Next time, though, I think it would be a good idea if you included that rationale in the closing. Xoloz 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/kd The only point of process with which I quibble is above. In discussions as extensive as this, with allegations of vote-stacking, a thorough examination of the arguments and their merits is absolutely necessary. Based on his remark, I have faith Raul did this. Making that reasoning explicit makes life easier for everyone, though. Xoloz 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (keep deleted) as per Raul. Template is supported neither by policy nor by WP:GA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I was going to protest because I mistakenly thought this was {{GA}}. Yes, this template goes against policy. Good articles already get a note on their talk pages. They don't need a pretty icon on the top right corner like featured articles do because they're not quite at featured article status yet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I've reviewed the text of the debate and I see charges of meatpuppetry together with some evidence of vote packing. While I personally favor vote packing, I permit admins discretion to discount it. John Reid 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, admin weighed the balance of the argument very well. It used the wrong picture in any case. If it ends up recreated, at least use the correct picture, i.e. Image:Autofellatio.jpg. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I missed the TfD, but agree with Raul's decision on this one. Number of "votes" isn't everything. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with Xoloz that Raul could have provided a rationale before doing something controversial, even if it's the right decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Admittedly I'm deferring to Raul's expertise here. But decorating articles with meta-content doesn't seem like a good idea. If not nipped in the bud, I foresee a rich growth of smiley-faces and bronze medallions and annoying little pastel boxes, and all the edit-warring accoutrements thereof... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Xoloz. JoshuaZ 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/Keep deleted per Xoloz --FloNight ^talk 17:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3 April 2006

Elliott Frankl

The article of Elliott Frankl was deleted by User:Thryduulf final vote was 8 to Keep and 8 to delete (although a few of the deletes appear to be sockpuppets and 5 of the 8 deleted votes were posted when the article was a stub and not complete. All the information is accurate and most but not all shows a source. The ONLY person that was attempting to say this information is false is user pm_shef who is the son of Alan Shefman, the candidate that is running against Frankl in the 2006 municipal election. Being from Vaughan myself I am sure pm_shef knows everything was true in the article but will do anything to get his fathers opponents article deleted, he did the same thing with a few other articles--Eyeonvaughan 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy relist--Eyeonvaughan 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Endorse delete Without sources or references it is impossible for outsiders to fact check this article. It look to me to be original research Seabhcán 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment so take out the info. that does not currently have a source and relist with the info. that does have a source, I looked it over and most info had a source.--Eyeonvaughan 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure/kd' All but two of the keep "votes" were clearly disqualifiable within standard closer's discretion. Additionally, the weights of the arguments and notability guidelines clearly support removal. This decision is right on merit, and consistent with process. Xoloz 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, excellent AfD closure, Thryduulff, this was definitely a tough one to close. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Most of the keep votes came from a contingent of Vaughanians (?) There seems to have been an effort lately to generate multiple articles on Vaughan politics, which can be adequately covered in the main Vaughan article provided reliable sources, NPOV, etc. Municipal officeholders rarely notable, candidates not.Thatcher131 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• The process was followed correctly. As has been pointed out repeatedly, unelected municipal candidates do not merit articles just for being candidates, per WP:BIO, and the keep contingent did not present a sufficiently compelling case that Frankl could be deemed notable for other reasons. And WP policy quite explicitly allows votes that appear to be agenda-based (e.g. people who've never edited Wikipedia before suddenly showing up with strong opinions in an AFD discussion, or votes with no rationale offered) to be excluded. AFD is not a raw numbers vote; it's a debate in which the numbers are a factor, but not in and of themselves the defining one. Plus the whole thing is quite clearly part of a determined campaign to skew WP coverage of local politics in Vaughan in favour of a political lobby group's decidedly POV agenda, which is not permitted under WP rules. And that's not even getting into the blatantly false accusations of bias and/or vandalism that the Vaughan Watch contingent continually makes against anybody who dares edit so much as a misplaced comma from their approved versions. Or the fact that they've already attempted to do an end run around this process by recreating the article twice today alone. Or the fact that they've actually resorted to citing Wikipedia mirrors as sources for the disputed assertions (per this edit). Endorse deletion; I've seen no compelling reason not to. Bearcat 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I have no ties to Vaughan (or Canada, for that matter). The simple fact of the matter is that this individual clearly fails WP:BIO. An examination of edit histories of this article and other afd'd articles related to Vaughan reveals obvious sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Having lived there, I do have ties to the "City above Toronto". I still think this artricle should stay deleted. I'd think the same for Toronto candidates, and indeed, any municipal political candidates of similar prominence. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The Vaughan soap opera rolls on. · rodii · 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll go further. I ^{not really} think we should blackhole Vaughan--delete and protect all Vaughan-related pages, including user pages, until after this election, and hope if any of them are motivated to come back, that it's as constructive contributors rather than political warriors. · rodii · 21:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Bearcat. I'm not involved in the whole Vaughan debacle, but I have been keeping an eye on it. This is an election candidate, not a notable person. Despite vocal support from many editors who are very involved with Vaughan politics articles, there is little support for this kind of article. Closing admin could have relisted for a clearer consensus, but the decision was right. Mangojuice 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse relisting AfD I agree with Mangojuice about the lack of consensus. It's a travesty that this article has been removed because of Pm_shef and his pal Bearcat's personal agenda. Sure they'll deny it; but Pm_shef's father Alan Shefman is Frankl's opponent and the incumbent councillor. This is his clever campaign to sabotage his opponents, and I'm disgusted that almost none of you are doing anything about it.

The arbitration committee has ruled that people who are related to the subject in question cannot edit. All of these issues that are occurring are happening because Pm_shef and his partner Bearcat wish to delete portions of articles and indeed entire articles to suit there purposes. These edit wars start in order to revert Pm_shef's whitewashing.

Finally, as has been cited, the article is very accurate. While not every portion of the article is cited by some objective source (can't be the newspaper articles, can't be the individual's website, according to Pm_shef and Bearcat) the article itself has 6 or 7 citations, much more than other articles. It meets wikipedia's standard. All of this talk of "no evidence" has been brought up by Pm_shef; he is not an objective source for research.

Again, this article should be relisted on the AfD, and I'm hoping there is a consensus for that. VaughanWatch 11:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So again, let's relist the AfD and have a more reasoned debate.

• • I have no personal agenda in the matter except to ensure that Wikipedia's rules and standards are followed, and I have no personal relationship with pm_shef whatsoever. You are to retract both of those false claims immediately. It has nothing to do with wanting to sabotage anybody — exactly how many times am I going to have to tell you that I have no connection whatsoever to anybody remotely connected to Vaughan politics before you realize that I have no connection whatsoever to anybody remotely connected to Vaughan politics? And for the record, I did not overrule any verifiable sources in the article — there weren't any verifiable sources to overrule. You guys didn't even attempt to cite any sources until somebody hit on the clever but invalid ploy of citing Wikipedia mirrors as sources. You didn't cite any newspaper articles. You didn't cite his campaign website — I had to find his campaign site by myself on a Google search. And guess what — it doesn't even make some of the disputed claims. Bearcat 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as Xoloz said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. It's is not worth revisiting an article that doesn't even come close to meeting the verifiability policy. As nearly as I can tell very few revisions even attempt to cite sources, and the few that do use sources such as www.elliottfrankl.com . Dpbsmith (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. nn, due process. `'mikka (t) 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews

Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews was deleted by User:Thryduulf. Final vote was 30 to Keep and 38 to Delete. Thryduulf discounted keep votes by new users using the arbitrary threshold of 10 edits. User also included 10 votes to merge in the delete vote. This is neither fair nor wikipedia policy.Seabhcán 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have recounted the vote and the correct figures are Keep:30, Delete:31, Merge:18 (included in Merge is several Merge and/or delete votes, which amount to the same thing) Seabhcán 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As noted by the closer, most of the "merge" "votes" called only for adding a line or two from the article to the Sheen page, not for preserving its substance, and are properly characterized as calling for removal of the long article. Monicasdude 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• As I explained in my summary, my final count was "38 delete, 18 keep, "18 merge". The 10 merge votes included in the delete and merge totals were: 1 "Delete or Transwiki to Wikiquote", 5 "Delete or merge" and 4 "Delete and merge", which are all votes to delete. I counted the 1 "Merge or keep" as both a keep and a merge. I did not count the 9 straight "merge" votes as delete or keep. Counting only straight delete, keep and merge votes gives 28 delete/17 keep/9 merge. I don't understand where your figure of 30 to keep comes from. Discounting votes made by anons and very new users is perfectly normal. I did not use a 10-edit threshold, that was what user:Mmx1 used in his unnoficial summary, which I did not refer to. Afd is not a vote, and as I also said in the summary "Many of the reasons given to delete focused on this article, whereas most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" - which doesn't explain why this article is notable enough." I stand by my decision. Thryduulf 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What you describe as 'unrelated' articles, I would describe as precedent.Seabhcán 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD (and indeed DRV) is not bound by precedent. Even if it were you would need to explain why the fact that another article was kept means this one should be. One of the cited articles was the one about Michael Jackson dangling his child over a balcony, which is completely different to an actor giving a series of interviews. This is like saying "there is an article about a fibreglass shark embeded in the roof of a house therefore there needs to be an article on the interview in the local paper about with the vicar's wife who beleives she was abducted by aliens". Thryduulf 16:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem with this process is that the accusation of "non-notable" is impossible to defend. Most of the 'delete' votes were based on notability. Google currently has 1.1 million sites mentioning this topic and 99 newspaper articles. The precedent was that the actions of a US actor may have a dedicated article and was not equilivant to equating sharks with vicars or aliens. It seems to me that there is a dedicated cabal of wikipedians who wish to delete any article which is negative to the US. This is infact being commented on outside of wikipedia, here, for example. I have also encountered this on Iraq related articles. It is a sad development. Seabhcán 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually it's more like 536 hits than a million (YMMV as google indexes settle). While googling for that I noticed we don't have the article Charlie Sheen says in an interview he has slept with 5,000 women (google). I mean as long as we are writing articles about individual interviews. Weregerbil 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • On a purely factual note, your calculation for google hits is false. When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based in principle on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected, not the entire number of hits. A rough (very rough) estimation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. Eusebeus 09:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • The number of hits this supposedly "hot" news item gets from a Google News search of "Charlie Sheen" 9/11 is 99. So much for widespread media coverage.Ande B 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thryduulf, especially most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" Thatcher131 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, good analysis by Thryduulf. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd Many closers discount editors with fewer than 100 edits, a few discount those with fewer than 250 edits. Ten edit threshold is generous, consistent with practice. The AfD is perfectly valid; additionally, deletion is what the article merited, in my judgment. Note also that "merge/delete" votes are technically inconsistent, and can be considered void within closer's discretion. Xoloz 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and immediate undelete This series of interviews is historical for the 9/11 truth movement, people went out and gave a demostration of gratitude, Sheen is refered to as a hero, it is the result of almost 5 years of efforts on the part of the 9/11 truth movement to manage to get the issue to mainstream media in a repectable way, and it is seen as a major historical achievement! There was certanly no consensus for deleteing, and i most strongly object to deleting this accomplishment as non-notable, when every single source in the 9/11 truth movement is refering to it in joy! --Striver 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Note that deletion review is not about the content of the article, but about the process of deletion. Thryduulf 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  User:Thryduulf stated that the keep voters did not present arguements for keeping this particular article, and that is blatantly inaccurate, there are plenty of arguements for the notability of this particular arguement, undelete now! --Striver 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Funny thing is, I read "every single source in the 9/11 truth movement is refering to it in joy" as "every single walled gardener is throwing rose petals like there's no tomorrow". But no matter how high they throw them those walls are still too high for anyone else to see, or care. Endorse deletion per above. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  We dont decide how important something is to ourselves, but how notable it is for the people involved in it. I can assure you that i view the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" as a totaly random and non-notable quote, but those in that field find it notable, in the same way do i consider most sport events as totaly non-notable walled gardens. By that same standard, this article is not only notable, but historic, to those millisons of people involved in it, and it is a blatand violations of the policies wikipedia has set to delete it.--Striver 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, per Thryduulf's sound analysis. -Dawson 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. 38-18-18 is absolutely not a consensus. When a consensus cannot be reached, Wikipedia is supposed to err on the side of inclusionism. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and treating it as one allows for the exclusion of information based on the fact that it supports an unpopular POV - which is exactly what I believe happened here. --Hyperbole 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. First, Thryduulf did not disclose his threshold, but it and his numbers are not the same as the unofficial figures I put up so do not conflate them with what I posted. I was erring on the safe side with the figure of 10 edits, having seen an admin close, counting 15 as the threshold: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/911_Eyewitness. From what Xoloz says, even that's fairly generous. --Mmx1 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Did not participate in the debate and have no opinion about the article but I really can't see any clear consensus here. -- JJay 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion The closing admin counted off the hordes of sockpuppets that came in to vote "keep". A very good thing, not bad. I am afraid that deletion review is again being used to try and save bad articles to promote certain POVs.--Jersey Devil 19:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Disregarding likely sockpuppets was appropriate, but after that was done, the resulting AFD didn't even resemble a Wikipedia:Consensus or supermajority. Absent that, the policy is supposed to be to keep the page. Policy wasn't followed here. Sockpuppets aren't the issue. --Hyperbole 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  You don't need a supermajority to close in favor of deletion...do us a favor and don't ever close out any Afd's if that your take on policy.--MONGO 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  You absolutely do need a consesus or at *least* a supermajority to close in favor of deletion. Reread the appropriate policies, e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. When there is no consensus, a page is kept; supermajority can be substituted for consensus only when a discussion is large enough that consensus is not reasonably possible. --Hyperbole 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  I will not argue that the vote constituted a supermajority though it could very well be made; this certainly falls within precedent as far as the percentages fall w.r.t. supermajorities for AFD. However, the outcome is not a vote. It is dependent on a "rough consensus" subject to common sense and the discretion of the closing admin. At the very least you must cede that excluding new and anon users to establish an accurate picture of the opinion of established wiki editors is fair practice, which completely throws off the "vote".--Mmx1 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  The vote was 38-18-18 D-K-M by Thryduulf's count and 31-30-18 D-K-M by Seabhcan's. I do think that whether every single new user's opinion should have been completely discounted is a debatable point, but either way, neither of those counts imply a supermajority. Both are clearly no consensus. As general policy, if a significant number of Wikipedians want an article to stay, it should stay. Or, to quote the policy, "When in doubt, keep." --Hyperbole 01:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  AfD is not a vote. Thryduulf 10:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• The root article on this topic is now 101kB long. Yet every time a spin off article is created it is listed for deletion. This behaviour of certain users is to promote certain POVs. Seabhcán 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep deleted; I don't really see consensus but this needs to go nevertheless. Kotepho 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletetion absolutely. This is just one interview, neither noteworthy or notable. The article does not explain why it is notable. The fact that this interview occurred isn't even notable in the Charlie Sheen article, compared to when he has had to explain to the press and provide interviews about his involvement with Heidi Fleiss, his drug rehab, or anyone of the movies and TV productions he has been involved in. Thryduulf was right on about his interpretation of the vote.--MONGO 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Note that deletion review is not about the content of the article, but about the process of deletion. --Hyperbole 20:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Policy was followed and process was maintained. I probably should have speedied it when I first saw it.--MONGO 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Make that Strongly Endorse Deletion. It is a perfectly valid practice for the administrators to listen to the comments of contributors without being bound by the mere number of votes. One good argument beats ten bogus ones any day. I was one of those who said Delete or Clean up and Merge. That clearly means that my vote is intended to get rid of this article as a stand-alone article. From this point on I suppose I will simply say delete when given a choice to possibly salvage some small piece of an article. This article was a mess and had nothing notable about it. I'm rather tired of hearing unhappy posers attempting to pyschoanalyze deletion votes as being indicative of some underlying political purpose: analyze yourselves. I'm looking at this for editing purposes only and there is no good reason to keep this as a separate article. Wiki is not a collection of interview transcripts, particularly poor ones. Ande B 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Ande B. And Striver, please understand that in an AfD or a review of an AfD, the most unpersuasive thing you can do is make claims of censorship. JoshuaZ 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Interviews are rarely notable, and there is no compelling evidence that this goes against that trend. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• A whole website is dedicated to this event! How in Gods name can you call this as non-notable when people dedicate websites to it and go out giving demostrations of gratidude? There was nothing even close to consensus for delete, protocol is not followed! --Striver 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Groan, Striver please reread WP:N and WP:V. JoshuaZ 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The interview did happen, the audio and transcript are linked and the three CNN programs on the subject are also available for download and linked. Can you explain why you think this topic is not verifiable? Seabhcán 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Just because a topic is verifiable does not mean that it is notable. Ande B 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you agree the article is verifiable (and perhaps even verified?). Perhaps we can remove the above link to WP:V and its sly suggestion otherwise. Notibility is unprovable and completely in the eye of the POV beholder. Seabhcán 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is the proper interpretation of many of the merge votes, which called for a brief mention. Rhobite 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus was reached, either relist the piece on the AfDs, or per criteria, allow the piece to stay. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Thatcher131 above. -Will Beback 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not even close: to steal a line from the AFD discussionby Samir), "Must be laundry day. It explains the socks. And the soap." --Calton | Talk 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete per Striver. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Excellent analysis by the closer, clearly he had the big picture in mind and decided appropriately. I know my own Merge and Delete recommendation was certainly meant to fall within the Delete camp for this article, and I think the other commenters who recommended Merge in some form or fashion were likewise pretty clear as to their belief that this standalone article should go. --Krich (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Newsworthy is not the same as encyclopedic. There is just no encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in strongest possible terms. I love how the "9/11 truth" organization, which is a laugh all in itself, is trying to assert that everybody agrees with them that this is a major historical event. I don't agree with them, so your argument is fundamentally flawed. As for the deletion, I believe it was spot on, as mentioned by Krich. Kill this thing in the face. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment WP:SOCK says:

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

Does the word "externally" mean outside Wikipedia only or does that paragraph apply to User_talk also? That happened in the original AfD as well as here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

— Weregerbil 09:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is nonsense to suggest there was any wrong doing in this case. Striver was informing users who had voted to keep that there was a deletion review ongoing. Show me the rule that says that is not allowed. These kind of accusations are simply a distraction and an attempt to intimidate.Seabhcán 09:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, easy please! I am not attempting to "intimidate" anyone, I am asking whether the above-quoted policy applies here. So the answer is "no, it's fine to invite people of known opinions into AfDs and DRVs"? Thanks, I think I learned something new today! Weregerbil 09:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't. Learn something, that is: It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Also: ...internal spamming means cross-posting of messages to a large number of user talk pages, by Wikipedians, in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about a large number of post, nor does this count as advertising. The users contacted had already voted on this issue. They were contacted to inform them that there was a new vote. It can be no coinicidence that Weregerbil 'discovered' these edits right after User:Swatjester falsely accused Striver of Spamming [10]. Is there a smell of socks in the air or do you guys work in the same office? Seabhcán 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is a coincidence (isn't that special)! No, we do not work at the same office (I am currently at home and there is nobody else here; by his signature he appears to be in Iceland and I am in Finland) and as to sockpuppetry you are welcome to request a user check. If I had been sure the invitations were not cool (per Calton above) I would have mentioned it to Striver myself. Why on Earth would anyone create elaborate sockpuppets to say something like that on user talk? Weregerbil 10:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny how Striver "forgot" to inform those who voted delete that there was a DRV pending, isn't it? And that is what was wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 14:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be acceptable to alert everyone who gave input to the deletion discussion that there was a DRV. To only give it to those who agree with you is completely unacceptable and I have trouble seeing it as an action in good faith. JoshuaZ 14:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Simply put: this was not closed improperly. Eusebeus 09:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admin acted correctly. David | Talk 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admins make judgement calls. No compelling case has been made that his judgement was unreasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per wknight94. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alien 5 (rumoured movie)

Alien 5 (rumoured movie) was deleted by User:Tregoweth 23:25, 22 March 2006, for reason 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball'. Deletion contested as 'out of process'. I am the main author and contributor and was not given an opportunity to discuss/debate the deletion. As far as I am aware, the article was not tagged with the deletion notice (I check my watchlist every few days and examine all edits, and I never saw a notice). Wikipeon 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, article violates WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish people who quote it would understand our NOT policy. Crystal-balling is when the writer adds his/her own speculation about a possible future event (i.e. NO crystal ball is just a more precise version of NOR). Reporting the notable speculation of others is perfectly legitimate. To take an extreme case, one wouldn't for example to delete a decent article on the proposed Freedom Tower.
  • Oh, and overturn. Pcb21 Pete 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between an architectural site for which there has been a design competition and significant controversy, and a movie that isn't even listed in IMDB. Thatcher131 17:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I normally turn to upcomingmovies.com for this sort of thing (it's now been bought by Yahoo!). Yes, they're not actually going to make Alien 5, at least not any time soon, hence it's not on IMDb. HOWEVER there has been a lot of notable talk about continuing the series, which is why this is a valid topic. Pcb21 Pete 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Pcb21. It's been a while since I looked at that section of WP:NOT. However, I think you're interpreting the crystal ball guideline a bit too strictly. WP:NOT says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." In that respect, what you say is correct, that we can report "the notable speculation of others...." However, WP:NOT also says: "Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." From what I understand, the fifth Aliens movie has little non-promotional information available yet. Despite that, though, since WP:NOT makes clear that unreleased movies are valid article topics, I'm going to have to change my vote. See below. Powers 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that line in WP:NOT is a classic example of policy page cruft/creep. Why pick on a particular case of a particular case (advertising in unreleased product) to mention in such a general place. The core principles here are Verifiability (which takes care of "crystal balls") and Neutrality (which takes care of advertising). I am glad you saw that and changed your vote. Pcb21 Pete 10:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but with some reservations. From Wikipeon's description, it sounds like it was speedied, but crystal ballism isn't a speedy criterion. I'd like to hear Tregoweth's side. HOWEVER: even if it was deleted out-of-process, there's absolutely no reason to restore the article and hold an AfD; per WP:BALLS, this article has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD, for precisely the reason given by Tregoweth. Powers 16:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do you mean per WP:SNOW? WP:BALLS redirects to Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. WP:SNOW. Stupid shortcuts.  ;) It doesn't help that sometimes Complete Bollocks can be called a "snow job". =) Powers 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Overturn and AfD. I've changed my vote per above, after rereading the WP:NOT section on Crystal Balls. Also WP:SNOW apparently doesn't apply, per Xoloz. Apologies. Powers 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)*Endorse deletion with reservations per LtPowers.Thatcher131 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:NOT is not a valid WP:CSD reason. It may have been valid under A1 or A3 or some other speedy criteria, but I can't tell without seeing the article, so will wait for admin to comment on that. In any case, speedy deletes should list a valid CSD reason in the deletion log, to avoid confusion. MartinRe 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD, per MartinRe, though to be honest, I think the AfD will result in WP:SNOW. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD. Quite obviously an improper speedy, and the article, while bad, is too substantial for me to consider it for the snow shovel. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list on AfD WP:NOT is NOT a Wikipedia CSD. Contested speedy, and classic AfD topic. Rumoured movies frequently survive valid AfDs. Xoloz 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD. Let it get its week in the sun before it's deleted.  RasputinAXP  c 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list not a speedy. --Rob 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This hasn't a hope in hell at AfD. Really. Why waste everybody's time? Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Because we're not AfD, and if we make judgements on content rather than process the norm, rather than something we do purely in extreme cases to save time, we'll turn into it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• And slightly perversely, a key reason that it wouldn't survive AfD is that it has been through here. Too many people have said delete now, and people psychologically find it difficult to change their mind/accept they are wrong, so will continue to support deletion come what may. If this debate hadn't occured, I know I could write an article on the purported Alien 5 that would either not getted AFDed or survive AFD, but now that it has, it probably isn't worth me trying :). Should I anyway? Pcb21 Pete 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If anything an overturn / list decision might have the opposite effect. But any AfD debate which looked at the content of the article as deleted this time is only going to have one outcome. I like process, I think process is important when large numbers of people need to work together and I would probably not have speedied it myself, but I really can't see any point undoing that just so we can trade "due process" for a week of having a crap article with a delete tag. Where's the benefit in that? Just zis Guy you know? 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse outcome but not process WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria, so {{prod}} would have been apropriate rather than a speedy. There is absolutely no point in recreating this for it to spend a week with either a {{prod}} or {{afd}} tag on it before deleting it again. Keep deleted. Thryduulf 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process I still believe it should have been granted a proper review period, but I've notified User:Tregoweth that I will no longer contest. Can somebody retrieve the contents of the page so I can add to my own site? (send by email or simply add to my user page where I will retrieve it) I put in a lot of work assembling all the referenced quotes and would like that effort not to be for nothing. Thanks. 202.0.15.138 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not signed in for that comment. Wikipeon 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW. (And I'm a huge fan.) John Reid 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 09:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article pronto. Serious violation of CSD- we have Prod, we have AfD, we have article talk pages, we have user talk pages- learn how to use them. It is shocking that admins feel entitled to trample established systems, in the process contravening AGF, as they seek to frog march articles off the site. The ends do not justify the means. -- JJay 14:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AFD. There are some small pieces of sources in the article which might give it a chance of survival on AFD. THe proper forum to evaluate whether this is good enough or just pure speculation is a deletion, and not an undeletion discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process, with strong reservations I see original author has withrawn the review and requseted the article be userfied, which I hope it will, as it could be useful should the film plans get more concrete in future. However, I am concerned with the number of SNOW comments. Yes, some incorrectly speedied articles would be snowballed in an afd, but we should be very careful not to allow WP:SNOW become a de facto WP:CSD. For the sake of a few days, I would much prefer a snowballed afd than an incorrect speedy. Yes, mistakes happen, and we shouldn't blindly relist all incorrect speedys, but we should be aware of the impression that the overuse of SNOW as endorsing incorrect speedys gives to people. Saying "this article would so obviously fail, that discussion isn't even necessary" should be used very sparingly. Regards, MartinRe 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

2 April 2006

Bonez

This article and also an article relating to Stan (graffiti artist) were both deleted on the grounds they were not notable. I believe this was done due to the fact that the users who did vote to delete these articles neither derive from melbourne or have little knowledge of the grafitti scene in general. 'Bonez' and 'Stan' are (or were) arguably two of the most prominent grafitti writers in Melbourne. Although a lot of their most visible work lacks creative value, one marvels at the extremes lengths these artists/vandals go to publicise their pseudonyms. These tags are unique in that they are ominously visible and are spread throughout almost every suburb in melbourne, going far beyond (as Sandstein puts it) 'petty vandalism'.

In closing, the fact that one cannot locate these artists on google should not be seen as measure of notoriety, as grafitti artists prefer to remain anonymous as their actions are illegal and making a 'hello police, i am a grafitti artist, this is where I live, my interests include..' type of website would certainly not be in their interest. This being so, one truly has to see these works to understand their noteriety. I was just about to provide photographic examples on their pages only to find them deleted? Why is this so? Just because it's illigal, does not mean it is not notable; Just because you can't find it on google also does not mean it is not notable. Do a little more research beyond wiki and google before you go around deleting artlicles. PeterPartyOn 13:50, 3 April 2006 (AEST)

• I have to say--and I mean no disrespect here, I swear--that "arguably two of the most prominent grafitti writers in Melbourne" seems like a roundabout way of saying "non-notable." It's hard to know what to say about the deletion based on the above description, though. Was it deleted out of process in some way? · rodii · 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonez was unanimous that these people are not notable. Is there any evidence that was not available at the time of the AfD? Until that time, endorse closure, keep deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• No grounds here at all to overturn this. Keep Deleted Eusebeus 10:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted absent credible evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I see no claims that they were so notorious as to have newspaper articles about them or anything similar. No new evidence has been brought to bear. JoshuaZ 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the cite of a newspaper made it clear that the newspaper itself couldn't figure out which of the two taggers was which. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rodii. No substantial reason given in nomination to consider reversal. Xoloz 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rodii. Very few taggers meet WP guidelines for notability, and this isn't one of them. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

50 Bands To See Before You Die

I don't know understand why this was deleted: it was clearly a subjective list published by a magazine and so wasn't factual as such, but no more so than Rolling Stone's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time: don't see why Q's lists should be less worthy of inclusion than RSs. Maybe it should have been renamed to Q magazine's list of 50 bands to see before you die, but not deleted. Jimbow25

• Perhaps because Q magazine is not an authority on music matters. Also the comment at the end of the article was completely unencyclopaedic. Just zis Guy you know? 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Heck, I live in the US, and generally hate modern music, but I'm inclined to consider Q's opinions musically notable, based on the loyalty I've seen among fans. What makes you so skeptical, JzG? Xoloz 22:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Partly, I guess, that every single magazine in the known usniverse publishes lists like these as seasonal spacefillers; very few are genuinely independently notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy without prejudice against the creation of an actual article. This was just a list of wikilinks, which I assume happened to correspond with some list some magazine wrote, and thus meets the speedy criterion A3 "Any article whose contents consist only of links elsewhere". The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, by contrast, is an actual article. With writing. And stuff. I'm not convinced that lists by magazines are inherently encyclopaedic (they write them all the time when they have no other ideas), but that's a matter for AfD, if anyone. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, subjective lists are copyright violations. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If this is unsourced, it is original research. If it is sourced to a magazine (something which is not apparent from the actual deleted versions), then Zoe is correct that it is a clear copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clear copyvios don't have to go through AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for copyvio reasons. Xoloz 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophilia

This article was speedied twice by the same admin during the first two days of a vigorous (but civil) AfD debate and is currently protected by same. At the time of the last speedy there were 21 votes, of which about one third were keeps, and the keeps were not from obvious sockpuppets or madmen. This diversity is significant enough that it should be clear to anybody that a speedy delete (which is supposed to be used in obviously nontrontroversial cases only) is a wrong, wrong thing to do, whether as an attempt to close the AfD or in spite of it.

I would be quite happy to see this article disappear eventually -- nothing good can come from it IMO -- but that does not mean that proces can just be bypassed in this way. The article should be undeleted for the time being and the AfD allowed to run its course. Henning Makholm 09:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• So, you want to undelete an article and put it back on the encyclopedia, when you think it will do wikipedia no good and shouldn't be on the encyclopedia, and a previous afd consensus thought shouldn't be on the encyclopedia, all because you were having a nice little debate, which, theoretically, might have ended in 'no-consensus'? That really is process wonking. --Doc ^ask? 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, appropriate speedy as recreated content. Not something we want sticking around in any case. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, the AFD was developing an interesting range of opinions, and the discussion should be left to run its course. Yes, it seems the original speedy may have been justified following recreation, but I think once the discussion had started to develop it should have been left to run. At the least the admin that speedied it a second time should have posted an explanation. Kcordina ^Talk 09:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment :: I~Phobia has just survived AfD; odd, perhaps, then that I~philia is speedied. NPOV anyone ? -- Simon Cursitor 09:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Islamophobia is a commonly used word. Islamophilia isn't. For each google hit on Islamophilia there are 1400 on Islamophobia. They aren't even in the same ballpark. Shadowoftime 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Kcordina's above comments. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Kcordina. Also, the last round of deletions, according to the log, was nine and a half months ago. The contributor has WP:CHILLed, and after this long period of time, tried again. In the case of new words, a lot may change in nine months, which is why I'd rather see it go through a full AfD cycle and get deleted that way. -- Saberwyn 10:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You know what scares me? Doc glasgow's comment below, saying that no one "did [him] the courtesy" of informing him of the AfD debate. First, that means that he completely missed the nice, big AfD template on the top of the page. I know it was there because I added it to the most recent deleted version, and saw it on the deleted verson before. I'm going to assume bad faith here, and make the assumption that Doc did not even look at the articlepage before he performed the speedy delete. The second thing that scares me about this statement, is that Doc appears to be claiming that there are things on Wikipedia that require his personal permission before they can happen. -- Saberwyn 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy Prior to this debate the article had been deleted five times (by five different admins). A better example of G4 (which was the explaination given both times in the deletion log) would be hard to find. MartinRe 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as a valid speedy of recreated content. While the content may not be identical to the one that was deleted by consensus, I'm not seeing why this is a valid article now when it wasn't last July. While this has been used by newspapers, we're an encyclopaedia and we're not required to cover every single meaningless neologism hacks come out with. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• After I have looked at the two versions, I will say relist. The first deletion, by Kelly Martin back in June, was entirely the correct decision in a sockfest of an AFD debate. The version here has several examples of the term being used by famous authors, journalists and politicians, something which was not in the old version. Therefore, I don't think that this counts as a "substantially identical" version. Also, over a few months, a term which was premature for an article may very well have evolved into a term deserving of one and I think further discussion on this is warranted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Sam Blanning and MartinRe. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted with earth salted. Deleted by valid AfD, deleted again as valid G4 several times, I would also have closed the second AfD as delete, on the weight of arguments presented. Content was not only substantially similar, but was created by the same editor, which looks a lot like gaming the system. WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course the content of an article about the same subject is similar. It has, though, been rewritten from scratch entirely, as has been observed by others. I already prove that its deletion was a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, as such providing textbook examples of politically correct bigotry. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Strangely, bigotry appears to be an excellent description of how the article is viewed by those who have read it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• I am about to make a test. I do not know yet how the test will turn out. I am about to perform a search on "Islamophilia" the full text of the New York TImes from 2000 through yesterday. If this is a real word in itself singificant use, and not just a columnist's or blogger's coinage (or a repeatedly-reinvented nonce word by someone seeking a rhetorical opposite for "Islamophobia,"), then someone, somewhere should have mentioned it in the Times by now. Let's see. My vote will be based on the outcome. Here goes. "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Odd, my own search of NyTimes.com came up with this from September 12, 2004. Netscott 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse, keep deleted. Valid AfD. The question is whether the new article proves that some significant sea-change has occurred since the AfD and the word has exploded into widespread use. The Times search convinces me that it has not.. This is not a real word in significant contemporary use, it is just an occasional reinvention or re-coinage and has no meaning beyond the individual meanings of "islam" and "-philia." I could be searching for a word to explain the recurrence of the thirteenfold motif on the dollar bill and say "triskaidekaphilia" and you'd know what I meant, but that does not mean triskaidekaphilia is a real word that needs an article. You can take an article about any word ending in -phobia and change the ending to -philia and likely find scattered examples of occasional use, but that doesn't mean we need corresponding -philia articles for every -phobia article, any more than we need an article on Pedophobia. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. What Dpbsmith said. Even the most "unabridged" dictionaries don't include entries for every word that is possible by mixing and matching suffixes like "-phobia" and "-philia", and an encyclopedia certainly shouldn't. - Nunh-huh 12:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: clear violation of Wikipedia policy. The VfD was not concluded in a proper manner. The deletor cannot motivate his deletion by objective reasons. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In a way that your repeated re-creation of a deleted article is not violation of policy? Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not, and I can. But 1. no-one did me the courtacy of informing me of this debate. 2. I speedied this twice per CSD G4, 'recreation of previously deleted content 3.'. There was a clear consensus 4. to delete the first time, and you don't get to game the system by constantly recreating and sending to afd until you can magic 31% to create a no-consensus. If there was reason to overturn the first afd, you bring it here and give your reasons. Keep deleted, obviously.--Doc ^ask? 12:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ad 1. The page was tagged with a huge VfD boiler template just minutes after creation which was hard to miss. This renders this point less plausible, bordering the ludicrous.
      ad 2. I rewrote thepage from scratch as I had not a backup copy, assuming some basic feeling of fair play aty the side of Wikipedia admins. It can be easily verified that the page is quite different from the version nine months ago.
      ad 3. Recreating the page more than nine months after the last VfD in which there was just a slim majority of 55% to delete it, hardly qualifies as gaming the system. Refer to the applicable Wikipedia VfD policy.
      ad 4. There was not a clear consensus, not nine months ago and not now. Please check the VfD attempts.
      --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Since this was not an exact recreation of content the G4 does not seem motivated. Furthermore, an excessive reliance on process over common sense is not constructive. The previous debate was held almost a year ago and was marred by puppets. This debate had significant participation and was properly conducted. In my opinion, using G4 while an AfD is in progress does more damage than any possible good. -- JJay 13:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. While this is as far as I can tell a neologism, it is important to follow process when dealing with controversial issues. JoshuaZ 13:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - keep deleted - per Doc glascow, MartinRe and Sam Blanning. I certainly trust Doc's knowledge of process and his judgment. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The article spliced together a number of separate neologisms for this term but it is not in general use, is pejorative, and I don't think a reasonable encyclopaedia article can be made out of it. David | Talk 14:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse G4 speedy/keep deleted per Dbpsmith. His test [1] convinces me of neologistic status as well. A valid AfD [2] deserves respect until substantial cause is given to reconsider. Xoloz 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [1] Can you elaborate on this test? [2]I have proven that the previous AfD and this AfD were not valid at all. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • 1.) See Dpbsmith's comments for his test and 2.) The previous AfD looks valid to me, and (reading your comments) I see no "proof" otherwise. First AfD was closed 5k/29d (discounting sockpuppets, which closer annotated), which is much more than 55%. Xoloz 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. His remarks have been scanned. The New York Times is known for its politically correct bias thus hardly can be deemed a trustworthy source for evaluating the concurrency of politically incorrect parlance. Other publications such as the Times and Washington Times did use the word. This so-called 'research', thus, is Americocentric and disregards British and other non-American media and discourse.
        2. It was not valid for the following reasons. a) Less than 2/3 majority b) Arbitrary disregard of anonymous votes (violation of innocent until proven) c) Disturbance of voting process by premature deletion of the page.
        Additional arguments for maintaining the term are:
        is notable
        is used in print
        is used in several reputable academic publications
        yields about 1000 Google hits
        --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I think in section b of this last comment, the source of the misunderstanding becomes clear. Wikipedia has had such bad experiences with users creating sockpuppet accounts in an attempt to bias our decision-making process that we have long-established traditions in which all suspiciously new or anonymous accounts may be disregarded at the discretion of the closing administrator. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. We are not holding a court nor are we making decisions about the life or liberty of the users. Furthermore, it's essentially impossible to prove sockpuppetry, making that an impossible standard for our purposes. An better analogy is that we are establishing (well ahead of time) some reasonable requirements for sufferage. Note that the concept of sufferage also applies only weakly because AFD decision-making process is a discussion, not a vote.
          Your other points about notability and use in print are possible arguments for undeletion but so far you have not provided any sources for those claims and even if true, they still seem to qualify this term as a neologism which is deletable under the Wikipedia is not a dictionary rule. Perhaps this content would be more appropriate over in Wiktionary? Rossami (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/Keep deleted and salted. This article has been recreated and redeleted so many times, it's almost become a cliché for {{deletedpage}}. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • With reason. All of its deletes were arbitrary and clear violations of applicable Wikipedia guidelines, as I explained above. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per User:JzG's comments above. --Hetar 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above; perfectly within process, and the right thing to do given previous AfD discussin. Eusebeus 10:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and transwikify to Striverpedia. Thatcher131 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per User:Dpbsmith's [1] test logic. [11]. I've not voted in any of the previous AfD's for Islamophilia (I'm a bit indifferent to the word myself) but speedy deletion seems to have been an improper course of action. Netscott 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Keep deleted and salted. I think it's been through plenty of deletion processes. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure - Still no reason as to why it should be re-re-created has been made. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - per above. Raphael1 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1 April 2006

List of TRACS members

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members

I'm curious why the vote was no consensus? Since the comments about proven pupperty was moved to the talk, the voting at first glance is imbalanced. On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members I counted 4 keep votes (includes Itake) verses 15 delete votes. The creator the page in question is a suspcted sock puppet of banned user User:Jason Gastrich who has a long history of puppets in AfD. I mean these are obvious puppets[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]While Hayson[21] admitted he voted in the Afd because he was told to [22] Thus, those 10 votes discounted bring my tally to 4 keep votes verses 15 delete votes.

And if you are not aware view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination) for past massive sock puppeting by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich.

Perhaps it can be given a closer look and see the comments by other users that were moved to the talk page. Arbusto 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak endorse closure. I think Mailer might have been a bit liberal in counting some votes from new accounts, but there are some things about the delete argument which makes me wary of voting to overturn it. One argument presented and often cited among most of those who argued for deletion is that this would do better as a category. I cannot see that this is the case for this list, because out of the 40 entries, only 12 of them have articles, and a category cannot handle such redlinks. I also think the arguments presented for inclusion by JJay are fairly good ones. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The argument was that if this list stays then other lists of schools by a certain accreditor will be created (the other ones had the beginings of some removed by myself). Other accreditors accredit 13,000 and 18,000 schools a piece. Also these lists are incomplete and out of date because they will not be updated everytime the accreditor updates its list. Arbusto 20:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Right after I made the above post, a new user with his fifth ever edit[23]. Arbusto 21:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Even more strange I got attacked with a new user's first post on this issue[24]. Arbusto 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. (I did vote delete, mind). I counted eleven valid Delete arguments and four Keep from known editors (of whom two appeared to be voting on the basis of faith not content and one, rather worryingly, appeared to argue keep mainly because of the identity of the nominator). The article is a list of institutions accredited by a single, controversial accreditation body; a category works much better for this since it's self-maintaining. If we followed this precedent by having an article on every accreditation body we would have a series of lists with up to the tens of thousands of entries. We already have an article on TRACS, from which this list was removed as unnecessary (the authoritative list and the category are both linked from the TRACS). This list adds precisely nothing to the encyclopaedia except additional maintenance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per JzG, who states the case elegantly. Eusebeus 12:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Normally, I wouldn't state an opinion because I participated in the original debate. However, since JZg is here, I will say that I think it was properly closed because I do not see a consensus in the debate. I would also remind JZg that AfD is a discussion and that this page is about process not content. There is no reason to restate his arguments for deleting the page. -- JJay 13:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I know AfD is a debate. That was the point. Most of the "keeps" made no actual argument, and appeared to be the result of solicitations to vote from Wiki4Christ (run by banned user:Jason Gastrich as if we need reminding). The balance of input in the debate which referred to substantive arguments rather than ad-hominem or Gastroturfing seems to me to be strongly in favour of deletion. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Gee I hope you're not calling me a Gastrich sock puppet now. Other than that, given your pronounced role on one side of this debate, I hardly think you have the objective distance necessary to voice an opinion on the quality of the arguments on the keep side. I don't either. Which is why when I say that I made stupendously substantive arguments for keeping this list and that the arguments on the delete side were outrageously lamentable, everyone knows that I'm just spewing my POV all over this page like a frat boy on spring break in Tijuana. -- JJay 18:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per JzG. More Gastrichcruft. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• I would agree with Sjakkalle on the question of closer's discretion, but Mailer seems to have vacated his decision now. In light of that, considering the circumstances de novo, I would recommend closure as Delete based on both "vote count" and argument strength. Xoloz 17:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, maybe I am missing something here, but the closing admin said he would take another look at it. Given that, why are we discussing this here? Furthermore, since the result was no consensus I'm not sure it makes sense to discuss this here at all. I was under the impression that Deletion Review was for review of deleted articles, not review of results that went to keep or no consensus. JoshuaZ 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete since even the closing admin is endorsing deletion at this point. However, I'm still worried about the use of this page as a mechanism to delete articles. JoshuaZ 12:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, without prejudice to the closing admin's investigation of course. --kingboyk 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wait for sockpuppet check. Mailer Diablo has placed his AfD closure on hold while some of the voters go through a sockpuppet check. I suggest we wait until the check is complete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Unlikely to be actual socks, but there was very offsite solicitation to vote (aka Gastroturfing). Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - some sockpuppets have been confirmed - see [25]. I'll leave the AfD as it is now since the AfD is listed here. Recommend relist if there are legitimate concerns by established Wikipedians, otherwise delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per JzG. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete only reason it was kept was because disclosure of sockpuppets were moved to the talk page and closing admin did not notice.--Jersey Devil 12:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• CLOSURE learn to understand when you've lost a fight people. Itake 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, That attitude makes so much sense when the closing admin is advocating deletion. JoshuaZ 13:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Especially since several "keep" voters are now proven to be sockpuppets of a banned user. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete, per JzG. -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. No consensus, even with possible socks. --Steve Jackson1 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Proven Gastrich sock, per CheckUser evidence.
  • Comment the above user's first edit was on April 3, 2006 [26]--Jersey Devil 19:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Closure per Itake. --207.200.116.203 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no reason to keep the list as demonstrated with arguments. Arbusto 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Procedural comment. Please do not modify the comments of others by striking through them. Not even when you think that you have confirmed evidence of sockpuppetry. A comment on your findings is sufficient and we've learned that it is perceived as less antagonistic by new users. Strikethroughs are considered very aggressive and tend to just earn us undeserved accusations of "censorship". Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The creator was Template:VandalNo Jobs which was proven to be a sock puppet of a banned user. This should be speedy deleted under section 5. Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for that criteria. Arbusto 05:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the creator was sock of 1-year blocked user. So it is not G5. An intentional tecnicality or oversight? I posted a question in talk of WP:CSD. Please discuss. `'mikka (t) 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. `'mikka (t) 20:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

This should not have been deleted, specialy not after having been turned to a redirect. I have a hard time to assume good faith, specialy since the admin that choose to delete the redirect has a history of conflict with me. --Striver 17:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see any claim of notability in the original article, so endorse deletion without prejudice against recreating it with an explanation of why he's notable. "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub "undeleted"." --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)^(talk) 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I have nothing against the redirect, so maybe "endorse redirection or deletion" would be more appropriate. --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)^(talk) 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He is a prominent part of S9/11T, and that at least warants a redirect. Bad faith deletion of the redirect, in my view. --Striver 18:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate redirect, undecided on delete validity If the article (inc history) only contained a redirect, I don't see any reason for deletion under WP:RFD, except possibly the "Adam B. Smith" example. However, if the article history contained copyvios, as the original one did, it could be justifibly deleted under WP:CPAA, but I can't see the deleted article to comment on that. MartinRe 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy of original, recreate redirect. This fellow is quite real and notable [27], so an article with content is clearly warranted (or at least not speediable.) The original appears to have been junk, so deletion was appropriate; however, I encourage recreation. Until then, I will be bold and recreate the redirect, as I see no justification for its deletion at all. Xoloz 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm. Subject is notable for his academic position, but not for his membership of 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth'. Article appears to have been either a copyvio or a substub. I would therefore take no action at the moment to overturn the deletion but if someone wants to have a go at writing a new article about his work at Minnesota University, with a side mention of his membership of 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth', then just go ahead without bothering DRV. David | Talk 20:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy of original, recreate redirect. per Xoloz --FloNight ^talk 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo, no prejudice against creating an article on this subject at a later date, but tis was a substub of not evident merit and contained no claim to notability outside of the current redirect target. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Doorknob (game)

This is not an April fools joke, though it has gotten caught up in that. This article was created about a month ago, about a real game. (Google's cache has the old article.) Someone decided to expand it in a rather unencyclopedic fashion earlier today, and marked it as an April Fools page. I marked it for {{cleanup-tone}} and removed it from the April fools category. Then it was improperly deleted:

20:41, 31 March 2006 Alkivar deleted "Doorknob (game)" (WP:NOT Uncyclopedia)

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, here's a source from a published book (calling the game safety, but with everything else the same). Here's another (calling it doorknob). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not an unreasonable speedy call, but weak undelete and afd, it isn't patent nonsense and SPUI's refs check out. --Doc ^ask? 16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care - undelete and AfD if we must, but I note that the first of SPUI's links does not appear to mention the game and the second is a book published by a vanity press, iUniverse, so there appears to be a shortage of reliable sources for this particular piece of potty humour, and SPUI's reputation is not exactly spotless. Perhaps it should just be added to an article on potty humour or fart gags and left at that. Just zis Guy you know? 16:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The first one clearly mentions it - it just calls it safety rather than doorknob. I knew this game well about 8-10 years ago as a Boy Scout. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither the word safety nor the word doorknob appear in the linked page. The book is published by a company with only 35 books on Amazon and whose website is currently 404. The other book is a vanity publication. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • They appear in the image - maybe you have something disabled that Google Books needs? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Even if that were the case, it would not adress the fact that neither of these books appears to be form a reputable publisher. Just zis Guy you know? 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy, but very weak undelete and afd No refs were included in the cached version, which combined with the content and current day, would justify a speedy to me. The additions of the refs change that somewhat (some google results, mostly on personal web sites/blogs though), but I'm only voting very weak undelete as I think the article would be unlikely to surive an afd, but it's probably due the slim chance anyway. MartinRe 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It had been made about a month ago, not for April 1. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, worth examining on afd. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I can vouch that this game exists widely, and the description of it is not a mere prank. It's not so much a "game" that people sit down and play, but rather extremely similar to the tradition of Calling shotgun to get the passenger seat in a car -- among certain groups of friends, the "game" is considered to always be "in progress." Boy, I never dreamed I'd find myself coming to its defense.--Plaidfury 18:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I remember safety (or was it safeties) being called when I was a kid, but I never thought of it as a game; it was a background buzz in what passed for conversation among teenage boys. (Oh, and I am quite sure that doorknobs were not part of it.) The issue, though, is not whether the phenomena exists, but whether we can find reliable, published sources for it. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list at AfD I agree this was not a bad speedy call, but there is clearly some real "social phenomenon" to investigate. I personally doubt its notability, but children's games, even foul ones, can be encyclopedic, so a WP:SNOW call seems unreasonable. Xoloz 18:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete/list at AfD per Xoloz --FloNight ^talk 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I don't see how you can justify this speedy. Even given the day don't you look at a page history before deleting something? If it had been speedied G1 or something I could agree, but it seems it was speedied on the april fools version. Kotepho 05:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • May I recommend reference of "The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren", by Opie and Opie, which has extensive material on the English version of the "doorknob" or "knocker" game. -- Simon Cursitor, London, England 10:44, 2 April 2006
• Undelete. April Fools vandalism/joke edits (delete per your opinion) should result in a revert, not a speedy delete. Cynical 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Real game, I've played it before. ::poot:: ....saftey... :) -Oscar Arias 05:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist, per the sources provided by SPUI. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

31 March 2006

Betty chan

betty chan meets "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" because Yew Chung is extremely popular in HK and yew chung became the first school to be granted land from the government to operate a private school... and it's all because of her leadership, well of course her husband as well, he is a politician...a few years ago when yew chung got the land, majour newspapers strongly critized yew chung because her husband was the secretary of the former cheif excetive tung chee wa....... yew chung was on the news for months.. in hk i mean..So i think she deserve to have a bio on wikipedia..Snob 01:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This page was first created March 30th; it contained 3 lines stating, among other things, that the subject is the wife of a famed Hong Kong politician and is worth over "120 million". It was speedily deleted several times, and recreated on each successive deletion by the nominator. The later versions contained several paragraphs of self-referential justifications, "Reasons to let this bio to stay". I'm temporarily restoring the last version in the history logs, so that non-sysop users can have a look should they wish to consider it and comment. —Encephalon 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• A Google search appears to verify the existence of this person, and the significant assertion of her marriage. She'll probably belong as a mention in her husband's article, once he gets one. For now, Keep deleted because the article is in very poor shape, pending more sources or a rewrite. Xoloz 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Her husband deserves an article, I see no readon why she does. Keep deleted JoshuaZ 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Generally speaking, familial association with a notable person isn't really a claim to notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• KD Is there a speedy Keep Deleted option, cause here's its poster child. Eusebeus 10:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but unprotect the talk page. Stifle 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The page is a wreck, and she really only seems notable for her connection to her husband. -Colin Kimbrell 14:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/keep deleted and earth salted. This article was recreated several times, definitely requires {{deletedpage}} protection. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A large response by User:Snob was posted here, I moved it to Talk:Betty chan#Moved from WP:DRV to keep the DRV page size manageable.
• Endorse deletion. I still can't see what she's supposed to be notable for. Just zis Guy you know? 08:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable for being the director of Yew Chung, Yew chung is extremely popular in Hong Kong, and it became the first school to be granted land from the HK government to operate a private school, and it will be in KOWLOON TONG<-- this makes a huge difference!, you want it to be deleted maybe because you know nothing about Hong Kong!Snob 19:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And this can be a link for "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yew_Chung_International_School_of_Hong_Kong" since it's there already Snob

I belive that many people who goes to the wikipedia yew chung page will click on "betty chan" or will want to have this link, especialy after the new campus is built, it will cause a lot of interest to the people in hong kong...Snob 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not have an article on the headmaster of Eton College. My old school was founded over a thousand years ago, we do not have an article for the headmaster of that either. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

then you can try to make one! why can't people like me help to expand wikipedia???... it seems to me that no newer articles are allowed to be created and we can only edit older articles..... and betty chan is not dead.....Snob 22:54, 1 April 2006

(UTC)

this situation is different, Yew Chung is in Hong Kong and all of the primary section is located near the kowloon tong mtr/mcr station.... everbody who goes to kowloon tong will see yew chung, and betty chan is Very Rich, her husband is a famous politician in hk and was the secretary of the former hk cheif excutive , tung chee wa, and yew chung got the last plot of land next to the new kowloon tong kcr station because of kwok wah's relationship with the hk government, a few years ago, it had been on the news because of this...Snob 23:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC), betty is the director of yew chung, this is why i want to write an article about her and not her husband, people will want to know about her... although some of this can be posted on the yew chung article on wiki, but i think a betty chan should be created to cover more about her Snob 23:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, non-notable. Snob, so far almost all your contributions to Wikipedia have been about this article. You are simply too close to this person, as an alumus of the school and as someone who knows her personally, to be an impartial editor. Please see WP:VAIN and examine your motives. If she is truly notable, just wait and someone else will create an article. It doesn't have to be you. I'll bet you can find many other ways to contribute. · rodii · 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have contributed on the " nina Kung" page.. simply because i like to know and write about rich peopleSnob 02:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I used another username " l7iu" to edit "nina kung" .... and I am Snob...L7iu 02:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) -snob and "Rodii" PLease go to the "betty chan" talk page and Click on all of the Links .... you said i am close to her? and know her personality!... all of the information is from websites and from my teachers... She is rich... and she owns schools in china.. You think she will Ever go to our school and talk to us? I only saw her while attending the kowloon tong campus ground breaking ceremony..... please READ before you commentL7iu 02:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Thank You

People PLEASE use your common sense!, you guys never read wht I wrote or click on the links i provided... Some people above even thought I am Very Close to Betty Chan.... Let me tell you guys, a very rich director of a Prestigious international school WON"T usually handle her schools.... She has a lot of other businesses.. And did you GO to the www.ycef.com website... There ARE ASSISTANT DIRECTORS that she hired!!!... and If i am her i will not go to my school because i am very rich and it will be much better for me to stay at home in my sai kung mansion and watch TV!L7iu

Check this link and read.. a speech from her for the ground breaking ceremony[28] you will then know that madamme chor hang is her mother.Snob 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• And that is important because why? · rodii · 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The page has been recreated on its talk page, so that may be need to be dealt with pending the results of this discussion. --InShaneee 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Deathphoenix, salt heavily. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

28 March 2006

Jerry Taylor

Speedy deleted as an attack page. In reality, it had a good three paragraphs of NPOV information under the heading "Biography". There was a bunch of nonsense under the heading "Controversy" that could have been deemed an attack, but could just as easily been cleaned up or removed. Ashibaka tock 02:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy delete and let the AfD listing run its course if relisted (I closed it, because the article had been speedied). I added the {{deleted}} to prevent people from creating messages in the article space asking where the article went, which is not really appropriate. --W.marsh 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ashibaka is correct. The Biography section was completely objective.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.171.208 (talk • contribs)
• Keep deleted, attack pages are clearly speedy delete-able, and the Biography section was in no way objective. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a reason to remove the Bio section or to clean it up, not to remove the entire article. A6 can only be (properly) used when the only purpose purpose of the entire article is to disparage its subject. That doesn't seem to be the case here. --W.marsh 03:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The article was created because Slashdot had a story/thread/whatever making fun of Mr Taylor. It's arguable (though I wouldn't want to try it myself) that it was intended as an attack page, and is therefore speediable. Frankly, I wouldn't have speedied it ... but I would like to see it gone. It looks like an article that needs to die, and I for one am not a fan of going through an unnecessary process just for the sake of it ... see also WP:SNOW ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • But WP:SNOW isn't policy, or a guideline, or anything. A6 didn't happen properly, from the looks of things, so it should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't say WP:SNOW was policy, or a guideline. See also: "going through an unnecessary process just for the sake of it". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, it's not much of anything was my point. I certainly don't think the process would be unnecessary, I think notability is fairly clear. If anything, the protected page keeps us from having an article on an arguably more notable person, the Cato Institute member of the same name. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This page was quite clearly begun as an attack page. The first edit, on March 27, had:

  Jerry Taylor is (as of 2005) the City Manager of Tuttle, Oklahoma. He was a party in a famous email exchange covered by Slashdot when he mistakenly contacted the developers of the CentOS operating system to complain about lack of access to the city's website. This might be considered an epitome of the <disparaging remark removed>.

  The edit summary was Nice going, jerry!. There was an external link section, pointing to the /. thread Mark alludes to.

  Later edits attempted to set it up as a proper article, including details of his education and work history. However, the suitability of this subject for an encyclopedic entry has not been established. He is essentially a private individual. The only external source on him appears to be a short local news clip [29]. This person has not been the subject of studies or reports such that there are multiple reputable sources of information on his life that would indicate suitability for an encyclopedic entry. Therefore, restoring this page with the attacks removed is a poor option. As well, speedying it under A6 was not out-of-process as the history makes clear. This is an encyclopedia; we are under no obligation to host thinly-veiled attack pages like this one. Hence, kd. —Encephalon 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't claim to be a great wikipedia author but I'm definitely not a creator of personal attack pages. Some people strive for notability, some have notability thrust upon them. The person in question behaved unconscionably, *after numerous supererogatory efforts to help him, numerous clear explanations of the actual situation, and numerous requests that he calm down and lay off the threats. His extreme obtuseness probably colored my draft -- the "nice going" bit and the PHB reference -- but the incident was quickly becoming widely talked-about and I thought the wik should have a synopsis. As I said on the article's discussion page (in "Let's agree"), it is entry-worthy because it felt so familiar to so many people, and I hear a word has now been coined out of it. btw, I think the graf in Tuttle suffices, so I'm indifferent to deletion at this point. Mateo LeFou 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Encephalon, who manages to hit the nail on the head, as always. Xoloz 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I was the one who put it in for speedy deletion to begin with. Taylor himself is entirely non-notable outside of this controversy, which is already adequately covered by the trivia mention in Tuttle, Oklahoma. Just because Slashdot and other sites are revealing the Idiot of the Week doesn't mean it's going to be a lasting Badger Badger Badger meme that's going to stick around forever. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 05:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further clarification: I put it in for speedy deletion under the criteria of non-notability as well as it being attack page. Non-notability is listed as a criteria for speedy deletion. If you remove the personal attack from the page, all you have is a bio on the manager of one of the million small town leaders in America. Definitely non-notable. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• I wish to support the keep deleted argument. The Slashdot thread emanates from a very snarky company website posting denegrating Mr. Taylor for trying to recover access to his town's site. Maintenance of this article simply validates the "attack" nature of the entire saga to date, and does not foster the respect for authority which is a hallmark of democracy. Simon Cursitor 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Since when has respect for authority been a hallmark of democracy, or any other desirable form of government? The democracy in question here, the American one, was founded by a group of men who had a notable and well-documented disrespect for the leading authority of their day. "Disrespect for authority" is no reason for removing any article at any time. Vadder 16:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endore speedy valid as a combination of A6 and A7, article's only assertion of notability is due to the disparaging section contained within. Once that are removed, nothing notable left, speedy as A7, leave the attack in, and it's speedy as A6. MartinRe 08:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: There are a lot of claims here that this is non noatable, but I would say that any entry with so many hits on google has become so -- "Results 1 - 10 of about 508,000 for jerry taylor tuttle". Half a million results is not something that is a small matter. This can be rewritten in a NPOV, but does need an entry. I don't mind rewriting this in a NPOV, but what would you count as such? — jaduncan ^{(User_talk:jaduncan)}
  • That's because you're picking up every result with people named Jerry or Taylor or have some connection to tuttle. '"jerry taylor" tuttle', which is what you should have searched for, only gets 487 hits. As long as we're counting Google hits, that's half as many as I get when you exclude my activities on Wikipedia from the results. And I am certainly not notable. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The link you label as "487 hits" now shows 11,700 hits just 2 days later. Is it notable enough yet?83.151.213.148 08:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, because most of those hits are duplicates. Google shows only 148 unique hits even now. Google is, of course, an imperfect test and it's difficult to rule a topic out purely on the basis of the google test but you certainly can't build your entire case for inclusion on just this one data point. Rossami (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, non-notable (and secondarily, attack page.) Personally I would also like to get the information out of the Tuttle, Oklahoma page. My logic goes as follows: the incident was caused by Jerry, not the city of Tuttle. As such, information about it belongs on a page about Jerry, _possibly_ with a single line linking from the city page. But Jerry was deemed non-notable. Ergo, the incident itself is non-notable and shouldn't be on the Tuttle page to begin with. -- Blorg 11:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The notability standard required for a stand alone article is higher than for a mention in a related article (or else using that logic, you could split every notable article into individual facts, non-notable for an article by themselves, and remove them one by one ending up with nothing). The amount of merge votes in afd's is an indication of that, see Tubby (dog) for a similar example. Regards, MartinRe 11:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. He's not notable in his own right and the CentOS incident can be mentioned elsewhere. David | Talk 13:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would argue very strongly that the incident in question doesn't deserve to be deleted entirely from Wikipedia. Whether it's in the Tuttle article, a Jerry Taylor article or a separate article all of its own isn't important, provided that in two years' time when someone makes reference to the event I can look it up in Wikipedia and find out what they're talking about. PeteVerdon 13:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - Whereas Wikipedia internet nerds may find this little incident newsworthy, the world does not. - Hahnchen 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody's suggesting it be mentioned on the main page, or recorded anywhere except a (hitherto) little-frequented backwater of Wikipedia ready for the few people who *are* interested in it. Plenty of things on Wikipedia are of little interest to most people; I've just hit the "random article" link and got Asobi Seksu - and I'm sorry to say that I have no interest at all in "shoegazing rock", whatever that might be. As I said above, I don't find it far-fetched that someone somewhere might one day refer to "being tuttled" or "Jerry Tayloring someone" - isn't it great that their readers can turn to Wikipedia to find out what they meant?
    I'm not arguing that this requires a whole article. Deleting Jerry Taylor is fine by me because things are explained perfectly well in Tuttle, Oklahoma. But the incident deserves a mention somewhere. PeteVerdon 19:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• This should be covered in Jerry Taylor, not in Tuttle, Oklahoma. Aside from appointing him, they're innocent. I vote to Overturn Deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachPruckowski (talk • contribs)
• Comment Prepare for a huge influx of ballot stuffers from the talk page, all feeling quite righteous in their indignation and fury. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 20:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And, obviously, as shown above, they're not going to even be bothered to sign in. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 20:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Really needs to be a redirect to Tuttle. Rich Farmbrough 23:54 30 March 2006 (UTC).
• Overturn Just because a there is a certain fallability to a character he shouldn't be removed, otherwise you couldn't have either Richard Nixon or George W. Bush on WIkipedia. Dpilat 00:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This is the 10th edit by this user.
• Keep deleted While the incident described seems to be true, I doubt it will have a lasting impact on much of anything. Besides, it's already covered elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just an update: KFOR News (www.kfor.com) covered it for several minutes on their Tuesday 10:00 pm newscast and the Oklahoman has apparently carried a story on the issue. Still not exactly world news, but it does keep the question of notability afloat. I have no real dog in this hunt. I think Mr. Taylor was being a world class jerk. I've sent angry off the cuff emails before, but I think when I've realized my mistake that I've put out a mea culpa and been able to appologize. I wish Mr. Taylor would do the same. As to whether or not this entry should have been deleted or not, I think a wait of two weeks or so will tell how much traction this story maintains or if it was just a passing breeze. But I think the speedy delete decision was too hasty. Why not just flag it NPOV as was done initially and let the discussion and process take it's course. The knee jerk delete took away the chance for later reviewers to participate in the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.40.95 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2006 March 31 (UTC)
• I vote undelete. The incident with Jerry Taylor has spawned a new phraseology and idioms "tuttle-to make an ill-considered, unreasonable technical request backed by threat." An entry in Wikipedia should be there as an explanation for the new idiom and as a etymological record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.206.123 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 2006 March 31 (UTC)
  • Comment: does not your (unsigned) suggestion point out the problem -- Tuttle (the city) is being tarred with a brush from one of its employees. Keep this deleted and in 6 months' time, if J.T. has acheived world-wide notoriety, an NPOV entry can be made, which also refers to the (to my mind provocative) responses made to Mr. Taylor by the techno-weasel (I believe that that is now one of the terms which has passed for the perjorative to the mundanely tossed-about) gentleman working for CentOs. -- Simon Cursitor 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn This is a notable incident, even if a minor one. It's typical, has drama and humour. It gives a clear-cut profile to this kind of thing. It's a real-life case study relating to lots of interesting categories -- small towns, their management, computer literacy, technical support, linux, web infrastructure, professional behaviour, crisis management, and now Wikipedia's role in providing encyclopedic coverage of these categories and their development as it happens. The incident, the exchanges, the people involved -- all these are public knowledge now, and public domain. The core of the Wikipedia article is given. The collective editing process will only add to the usefulness of it. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't have to wait until Time has frozen an incident in amber like some ancient insect before we can display it and learn from it. --xjy 09:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted attack issue aside, wholly unnotable. Eusebeus 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to endorse my own deletion? Disregard if not. Stifle 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for the reasons stated (quite well) by Encephalon. -Colin Kimbrell 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per Encephalon's excellent analysis. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• UNDELETE - Mr. Taylor's actions have coined a new term of art "Tuttled", in reference to the invocation of criminal consequences by one who is ignorant of the true situation. Since this is now a part of the English vernacular the story behind the term should be explained to give it an historical context. It is no longer about the action of a single person and an attempt to publicly vilify him, it is about a world-wide common experience of dealing with a Kafka-esque minor government official who, through ignorance, creates problems far beyond their normal sphere of influence. The page should be returned to the public.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.248.202 (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion per the above, frankly - we don't have articles in order to support defamatory protoligisms. Total verifiable biographical data is close to zero, and what is known from such sources resolutely fails to support any claim to notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 08:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Encephalon and Just zis Guy. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. If someones shows up with a well written biography of a notable living person, I'll invite them in. Otherwise, keep the door shut tight on controversial material that violates WP:BLP. --FloNight ^talk 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn This man was at the center of an incident that was widely-reported within influential circles. Jerry Taylor will continue to be referred to for years and will long be of interest when talking about the kinds of situations this incident typifies. Vadder 16:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Instead of deleting the article completely, why can't we write an objective article about Jerry and what happened. The whole point of Wiki is to write encyclopedia articles. If the article was an attack on him then it can be rewritten to be neutral. The whole email exchange about CentOS is very funny but embarisment is no reason not to have an article about someone. I do not understand how an article that is deemed an "attack" is deleted instead of the article being rewritten. --BenWhitey 17:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This comment is the 8th edit by this user.
• Overturn It is a notable event (from above) that will likely be discussed for years and has many statements directly from Mr. Taylor. Like it or not, Mr. Taylor is now known to a few more million people this week than last. This event has shed a light on PHB-style acts, dealing with threats from government officals and problems with suppporting FOSS projects. While I feel a little for Mr. Taylor, he dug himself in this hole and no one else. If he hadn't got himself in this mess I might be saying something else. Make it fair, make it objective, include the emails and please return the article. --Costoa 21:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't care that much but of course I have to vote for undelete. I'd forgotten the "nice going, jerry" bit in the summary. All in good fun, that. I still submit that there was no personal attack in my (very concise) initial draft. If the article turned into a big long flamefest, that's an argument for reversion, not deletion. Mateo LeFou 23:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Nuffle 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• I see no evidence that this person meets any of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Having said that, I'm unsure that this qualified under the strict guidelines for a speedy deletion. Since I think this would fail an AFD, I can not in good conscience recommend undeletion but if it is undeleted, immediately reopen the AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Chad78 This should be left as it applies to current events, which are a part of Wikipedia. 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikinews is thataway ----> Just zis Guy you know? 10:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert "Knox" Benfer

The articles for Robert "Knox" Benfer ave been deleted several times, mainly for the reason of needing clean-up and more information. Here is the articles for deletion page for both a Knox article and a Villain article. With clean-up, the keep votes beat the delete votes 9 to 4. Without clean-up they beat deleat 8 to 5. This new article has had some serious clean-up and is now up to Wikipedia standards.

• Overturn. Knox has done some pretty impressife things that deserve mentioning in Wikipedia, which I find to be a reliable source of information. With this article it gains some more reliability among the 2 million + Knox fans. Mushrambo 00:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• See

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (Animator)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klay World

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

  for previous opinions on previous versions of this promotional campaign. Keep deleted/Speedy current version as re-creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. The last article you posted clearly states that more people currently want the article left up there. If this article is rubbish, then so is every article dedicated to a video game character. They're informative, but there is really no need for them because they are described in the main game article and they will fade out eventually. With this article it's at least a bit more useful because it's about a real person. If this article deserves to be deleted, then so does every article dedicated to a single videogame character because it is just publicity for the character. This article is not based on publicity, it is based on a person who, at 17, had a fanbase of over 1,000,000 people (currently at over 2,000,000) and a person who also made a feature length film which was a hit at 17. Mushrambo 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The last article you posted clearly states that more people currently want the article left up there Try again. "More people"? More than what? In any case, comments from the last AfD before the article was speedily deleted:

      I now support this AfD but I believe it should be relisted by someone other than me. -- CrypticBacon

      Userfy. Not notable yet, but he's managed to get on IMDB and may become notable -- Slowmover

      ... I would like to point out that reeks very much of a recreation of Knox (Animator) Knox (animator) (protected), Klay World, etc., all of which were deleted as non-notable bios/films. -- Kinu

      To me though, the article reads like a grade school essay, and the personnel bit is rather superfluous, but he is notable in his field, and I would have suggested to keep. --Dawson

      I agree that he isnt important in the big scheme of things, however, in the field of Flash hes one of the most important people. --JoeBlowfromKokomo

      So three deletes and two weak keeps equals "clearly states that more people currently want the article left up there"? So, what, exactly, does the word "clearly" mean to you?

      (This, of course, skips the question of the lack of proof for the grandious claims Mushrambo makes for this guy's notability, but never mind, this isn't a rerun of previous AfDs.) --Calton | Talk 02:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

      • And for values of "more poeple" that include mainly rather a lot of anons, some accounts with no edit history in any other subject areas, and about two or three low-activity editors. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    • The last article you posted clearly states that more people currently want the article left up there - only if you count anonymous participants. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• By what Wikipedia states as notability, Robert Benfer passes the test. He has a very large fan base and his name is recognized by many people. He also has 808 unique hits on Google. I would also like to ask why everyone is so gung-ho to delete this article. It is a legitimate article. It seems to me that you people like to argue. Seems to be the only logical reason to make such a fuss about an article being deleted. Lucky for me I like to argue too (if I deem the subject of the argument to be worthy). I have done everything to make this article meet Wikipedia standards and yet you still want to delete it. I can do more to make it better. Just tell me what to do and I'll do it, but don't delete it on a count of lacking infformation because that is easily fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushrambo (talk • contribs)
• Endorse closures/keep deleted Valid AfDs, no substantive new evidence presented by nominator here. By the way, please someone delete the reposting and probably protect against recreation at this point. If nominator uncovers substantive evidence, he may bring it here. Xoloz 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, for the umpteenth time. I've deleted so many incarnations of this article under different names I've lost count. He'll probably find a new place to post it, but this particular one is protected until the outcome of the DRV is known. --kingboyk 13:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Seriously, have any of you actually read the article? I have listed all the short movies he has made (his claim to fame), sources citing his popularity (check his external links) and biographical information on him. If this is not substantive evidence then I don't know what is. As I said, I am willing to add anything needed to make this article meet Wikipedia standards but as of now all you are doing is ignoring my hardest efforts to make this work in your persuit to delete an article that can be a great article. I still fail to see the reason that you people want to delete this article so bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushrambo (talk • contribs)
• There are four sources given to substantiate the article. All of these are websites. Only one (IMDb) is usually considered a WP:RS reliable source. This source was considered by AfD and rejected as providing notability. New claims from reliable sources are necessary to justify a reexamination of these AfDs. Empty argumentation, and the bemoaning of Wikipedia's policies for having excluded something you enjoy, is not sufficient, and is probably counterproductive, as this forum hears such complaints everyday from nice, but ill-informed people who wish a "pet" article were notable than our forums have judged. Please sign your comments with four tildes. Xoloz
  • Comment Being on IMDB is generally a minimal criterion of notability, which he does meet. I'm leaning towards letting the article stay. JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD considered the IMDb claim, and rejected it as proving notability. Xoloz 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Glad to see that there is a person here that shares my opinion. I am currently in contact with Knox to see if I can get any more concrete information. My only goal is to make this article be sutable for everyone. Mushrambo 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You know something, I think you all should leave this article be and go focus on articles that actually should be deleted. I remember a few months ago there was a digimon article on a Priestressmon that had no sources, no proof, no reason for existance. It 100% didn't exist. Where you then? It took the arguing of people like me to get that article deleted because the digimon didn't exist. Now I've come here with information on a non-fictional, REAL person and you want it deleted. Tell me what is needed to make this article work and I can do it but other than that I can't do anything with you constantly ignoring my questions to state that it should be deleted. I have given you many sources that prove he does exist and that show what he has done (in the form of links to all his movies) and yet you still won't let the article stay. Just tell me why you are pushing for this article to remain deleted. I would think I've sufficently provided proof of notability but I could be mistaken and I can get more information if need be. Mushrambo 12:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We can reconsider in the future but I think for now notability has not been demonstrated and I'm not impressed by the repeated attempts to craftily recreate the article under new names. --kingboyk 13:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfDs, validly closed, no new evidence, massive gaming of the system. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have found two new sites that should help to prove his notability. They are located here and here. These sites prove Knox's popularity and show how he made his feature film, Klay World: Off the Table. Mushrambo 14:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out more times than I can count in respect of this particular subject, what is absent is reliable sources, Citing more unreliable sources changes nothing. Just zis Guy you know? 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think I have just the solution for this, then. The Washington Post has an article about claymations and it clearly mentions that, and I quote, "http://www.flashplayer.com : Heavy on the animation, this site features Web cult favorites from "Knox's Korner," the crazy claymation creations of 18-year-old Texan Robert Benfer." This may be a reference to flashplayer.com, but it clearly mentions that the creations of one Robert Benfer are "Web cult favorites". If the Washington Post isn't a reliable source then I don't know what is. Mushrambo 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That makes the website reliable and possibly satisfying WP:WEB, as best then this fellow's article should be merged into the article for the site. JoshuaZ 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - Even after reading the articles linked to above. We do not just recreate the article again and again until it is kept. - Hahnchen 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You neglect to realize that what was missing from the other articles like this were reliable sources, which I have now supplied. I change my vote to Overturn and Merge because, although I do find him noteworthy, I don't think there is enough information on him currently for him to need his own article. Mushrambo 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello? What? I told you that I had read the articles, even from the reliable Washington Post. However, I still don't think this guy is notable. And where would you merge it to? And how much information would you keep? At most, it should be a one line mention or a few sentences. You don't need to overturn to do that. - Hahnchen 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we have had a misunderstading. I ment the other Knox articles here on Wikipedia. There have been many people who have wanted this article up but have not been able to find a reliable source to back up that he is a real person and has a large fan base. I have now provided a site which proves that he exists and that he has a large fan base. The reason I believe he deserves more than a few line on the flashplayer site is because he has done more than what the lines on the flashplayer article say he has done. It says, and I quote, "Widely acclaimed claymation author, and creator of the Clay Series, The Matrix Spoofs, and other features. Gives the most quantitative content to UGOP." He has done a lot more than add "the most quantitative content to UGOP". At 17, he made a very successful, low-budget movie and has sold many copies of another DVD which has some of his best claymations on it. Maybe there isn't enough about him to need his own article, but there is enough for him to at least have a larger section on the flashplayer site dedicated to him, even though he has done so much more. I now think that the deletion should be Overturned and the article be marked as a stub untill more information becomes available. Mushrambo 21:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have another piece of relevant information that pretty much sums up the reason that the Knox article should be brought back. Legendary Frog's article is the same as this one. It's an article about a flash artist who has made flash movies for both Newgrounds and FlashPlayer. This was also put up for AfD and it won after about two tries. Now I post this article, you delete it, I finally back it up with a reliable source and you still shoot it down. By what I can see Legendary Frog's site has NO Reliable sources and yet it's still there. Plus, by what I can see Knox has accomplished more than Legendary Frog (Legendary Frog has only made flash videos while Knox has made flash claymation AND has gone on to take those ideas from his claymations and make a feature film out of them. Not only that but he has also started work on yet another feature film). If Legendary Frog can stay, why can't Knox? Mushrambo 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Look- the guy has a "cult following"; ask anyone under 15 who has access to the Internet about that. There's one "notability" criteria. Also, he has more than 2 million fans- certainly a large fan base. He's sold more than 5,000 copies of his full-length movie Klay World: Off the Table on DVD. He's got many ''distinguished'' hits on Google. His Klay shorts are internet phenomenons. Colleagues of his like Legendary Frog and that guy who makes a series about a squirrel named Foamy have their own pages. They don't have the most movies in the top Ratings list at UGOPlayer. They've never created, produced, and sold a feature length movie. This man- who only legally became an adult a few months ago- has notability, potential, and talent. He's a respected member of the Internet community, and should be treated as such. User:SERDUN
  • Thank you. This is the point I have been trying to make all along. There are flash artists listed in Wikipedia who haven't done HALF as much as Knox and yet their articles are still here. If they deserve to be here then so does Knox because he is as good, if not better than most of the ones here. I'm not downing any of the others listed here, but Knox, simply put, has done MORE than any of them combined. He has accomplished many things that are amazing, espicially since he accomplished them before he turned 18 (He was still 17 when he released Klay World: Off the Table, if I'm not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong). Plus, by looking at his NG profile, he states that he is working on three movies: Villain, Spatula Madness and Nimbin. He also states that he and a friend are working on two TV pilots so I can see him doing big things in the future. Mushrambo 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Does have an IMDB entry, but credited with one direct-to-video "movie" with a listed budget of $1,000. I tend to be an inclusionist on actors, filmmakers, and such, but that just doesn't cut it. Wish him the best of luck for the future though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If he doesn't cut it then nether does Legendary Frog or any of the other flash artists on UGOPlayer or Newgrounds because they haven't even accomplished that much. Mushrambo 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you wholeheartedly. You are free to nominate those for deletion too if you wish. However, the ol' "this article whould stay because there's other worse/less-notable articles on wikipedia" rationale just plain doesn't work. If other worse articles exist (and they do) it's because nobody has noticed them and deleted them yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I also voted delete on the Legendary Frog page, only for the dastardly video game flash maker to recreate the article at a sneaky new place without me noticing. - Hahnchen 05:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they don't deserve to be here (although some of them really don't deserve to be here). All I'm saying is that I thing Robert Benfer deserves to be here. How many people do you know of that have made a successful, feature-length, low budget movie before they turn 18? He is a noteworthy flash artist because he has done something that none of the flash artists on UGOPlayer or Newgrounds have done before. He has taken his series and made a movie based on it. He has a large fan base and his name is recognized all over the internet. I have supplied all the information needed to prove that this article is worthy of a Wikipedia article and yet no one else will accept this. You should go focus on the articles that actually deserve to be deleted because I believe that I have given sufficent information to prove the notability and credibility of this article. Mushrambo 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not saying that they don't deserve to be here (although some of them really don't deserve to be here)." is an incredibly funny statement, when you think about it. -Colin Kimbrell 15:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Valid AfD, nn subject, & please no comment from Mushrambo. Eusebeus 11:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. This article hasn't been deleted at AFD, only speedied, and has an assertion of notability. Based on that alone, the deletion process has technically not been followed. Stifle 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• The subject has, though, at multiple places, and the creator knows this, from my reading of the histories of the deleted articles. Just zis Guy you know? 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's where the assertion of notability comes in. The previous articles have not had any source to prove notability. I have now proven this articles notability using a reliable source and therefore make it so that this article should be relisted. Mushrambo 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• After a lot of thought I change my vore to Endorse deletion. I have realized that, although he has done some noteworthy things, he is nowhere near Wikipedia level yet. I also believe that the other flash artists on Wikipedia should be reduced to a few lines of mention on the pages for the sites where they are known the best. Mushrambo 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Young Writers Society

AFD debate is here. It was closed as a "delete" by W.marsh, but Violetriga reverted the closure and undeleted the article saying that "3 deletes and 1 keep is not consensus for deletion". I have reclosed the deabte, and deleted the article. Since this is a contested AFD decision, I am bringing the thing here for review. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Sjakkalle's close/keep deleted. Violetriga's action was inappropriate, and I hope she knows better. Admins aren't supposed to revert AfD closes, but to bring them here. In a controversial case, no one should ever revert a closure in which he/she voted. 1k/3d = 75%, which is a perfectly valid consensus. This was a blantant error on her part. Xoloz 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted clearly a non-notable website, and generally 75% is classed as consensus. Computerjoe's talk 15:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, 4 voters and 75% is enough for a consensus on a non-notable website. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Í
• Keep deleted. Whether or not the decision to close the AfD was right (and I would have relisted to get more consensus but that's by the by), the subject is manifestly not notable. David | Talk 16:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse and keep deleted. Hopefully the matter has been discussed with Violetriga so as to prevent similar situations happening in the future. I also can't help noticing that despite the claim of having 1000 members, it also has a much lower Alexa rank than my own personal website (and believe me, folks, that's not notable). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - three people saying delete is not enough. The site has 1000+ users and I think it's credit to them that they didn't try and bombard the AfD with their members. Alexa rankings are poor for small scale things, and that's what this is, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Yes, I should've come here with it but I don't have the time right now. I think it's quite disappointing to delete this with so few people commenting on the AfD. violet/riga (t) 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure. The reason given for attempting to invalidate the closure was in error. The community has considered the creation of a quorum for deletion decisions and rejected it every time. Four informed and articulate participants is a very respectable showing for an AFD decision and more than sufficient to be reasonably sure that the decision is good. Remember that while only four people will have commented, many more will have scanned the list of deletion discussions and reviewed the discussion. If it looks like a clear decision and you agree with the direction, our instructions explicitly say "don't try to vote on everything." Rossami (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Well, only two things to say really. First, it would be nice to relist every AfD until we got 10+ comments or whatever, but 4 is actually the average for non-controversial AfDs, it seems like... relisting all of those would take considerable resources. But the nuances of closing and relisting are kind of complicated and uninteresting to go into here. My main point is that I wish someone had brought this up on my talk page if they had a problem with my call, the first I heard of it was looking through DRV and saying "hey that article looks familiar..." --W.marsh 21:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Relisting would probably not have achieved a different result, since the article makes no compelling case for notability, to my mind. It does not rise above the level of the average web forum. Original close was valid, even if I would prever non-unanimous AfDs with few votes to be relisted. Just zis Guy you know? 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

27 March 2006

Mike Murdock

I disagree with the A7 in that he is a world famous pastor, author and song writer. The speedy delete was unwarranted.

[[30]] [[31]] [[32]]

• Overturn, take to AfD. Article did assert notability. Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD. Might be notable. David | Talk 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/list at AfD Contested notability deserves fair hearing. Xoloz 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (Amazon bares out that he's a well-published author, since we keep such there is little point in relisting - someone can AfD it if they think they can make the case). --Doc ^ask? 13:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Speedy Keep There is enough to make this fellow notable. Long history of high profile ministery with multiple TV shows and books. No reason to list on Afd. [33] --FloNight ^talk 18:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

David R. Smith

Smith was a candidate for Congress in the special election in Ohio last year to replace Rob Portman. He lost the primary to Jean Schmidt. The article was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Smith) on the grounds that he was non-notable but other candidates' articles survived the RFD process, e.g. James John Parker and Jeff Sinnard. I gathered this and similar articles which were deleted at Ohio second congressional district election, 2005/Minor candidates in order to provide a complete record of the election. Currently, Smith is challenging incumbent Mike DeWine for the U.S. Senate. I'd like to restore this article as at least one other of DeWine's Republican challengers, William G. Pierce, has his own article. PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, his information has been smerged into a larger article about minor candidates. He only got 0.8% of the vote, not particularly notable. Valid AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted, per Zoe. WP:BIO says people elected to national office, not people who don't even make it past the Primary (by a looooong way in this case, apparently). When he's as famous for losing as Bill Boaks or Screaming Lord Sutch I guess he'll qualify :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid merge. If he becomes notable again, can be demerged. David | Talk 11:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. But he's running in a statewide race now. And apparently he's been a candidate for Congress in Tennessee as well. Since Pierce, another candidate in the primary, has a page, why shouldn't Smith? PedanticallySpeaking 16:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Because this is an encyclopaedia with articles about notable popel and things, not a news source or political discussion forum. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Zoe, a lot of people run at a state level, this simply isn't notable. Incidnetally, I wouldn't object to deleting Pierce. JoshuaZ 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game)

This discussion has become very long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game)

MPOVNSE

• MPOVNSE

• Wikipedia:MPOVNSE

Why was it deleted? Quoting somebody is not a copyvio.

How was it deleted so quickly? Can articles grow if deletions occur at this rate? Or are articles effectively censored by this means?

If the article does not stand on its own, it should have been merged perhaps into NPOV or Wikipedia:NPOV or perhaps The Register or Andrew Orlowski or some other page .. is there one for Anti-Wikipedians or Feedback or Wikipedia:In the press or Wikipedia:Publicity, or Trolls or perhaps into the discussion page of some community page .... and a redirect put in place, according to Wikipedia:Deletion. -- Patentnonsense 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Valid speedy under CSD A6: Attack pages. David | Talk 13:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete into project space and tag as an essay, I guess; it's a valid take on NPOV and m:MPOV, although it also displays a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OWN. Amusingly, the originator is arguably the one guilty of MPOVNSE! Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, it's not an essay by a Wikipedian, but by a journalist, and as such, it's a copyvio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see that it qualified as an attack, but it clearly was 1) a copyright violation, 2) self-referential to Wikipedia and 3) an essay. It might be appropriate in a user page and, if the phrase catches on widely, perhaps as a Wikipedia-space page but definitely not as an article-space page. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

26 March 2006

Omar Q Beckins

This article is not a hoax, as it was ruled per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Omar_Q._Beckins. Omar Q Beckins was a real person, and although there are no online biographies of him, there is a Academic Challenge tournament named after him at White Plains High School. (link) The print source that I cited on the original page is also proof of his existence. I have spoken to the author of that biography and he has confirmed that Omar Q Beckins was indeed a real person. For refrence, I have created a mirror of the article (all content sans wikification) within my user page at User:Bonus_Onus/Omar_Q_Beckins. Please undelete this article. Bonus Onus 23:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a citation for the print source, please? If there are no sources which can verify the content of this article, it fails Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement. If there is no publicly-available information about Mr. Beckins, it is likely that he does not meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline, or he is a fake person. I performed a LexisNexis search for "beckins" and found no articles about him (I was looking for an obituary). Several parts of the article are extremely dubious, including the claim that he worked on the video game Pong when he was 12 and that he helped plan Operation Entebbe. I have a hard time believing that the IDF would involve an 18 year old Indonesian immigrant in such a sensitive operation. Rhobite 00:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, keep deleted. Even if there was some tournament named after him at a high school, that is not an assertion of notablity. The only thing remotely resembling an assertion of notablity is that he worked on Pong (when he was 12, no less), and I see no sources for this. I'm not sure it's a hoax, because if I wanted to create a hoax on Wikipedia, I wouldn't make it as boring as this article was. However, it's still devoid of any sourced material which makes this person notable. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Even if there was some tournament named after him at a high school, that is not an assertion of notablity. Or even an assertion of existence! FreplySpang (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Article is dubious, unverifiable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a Pong-making, kibbutz-living, 18-year-old super-spy without a high school diploma (but with a Princeton one three years later) is pretty extraordinary. Xoloz 06:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nominator should not create hoax articles nor make vexatious DRV nominations when they get deleted. David | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. If not hoax then unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted. "I spoke to the author" isn't something that any of us can verify. FreplySpang (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, i will search for better evidence of Omar Q Beckins, but i dont take kindly to people asserting that he is a hoax, because he was a real person, even if his story seems hard to believe. 69.118.193.143 23:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Stir

I found this in CAT:CSD and speedy deleted it. A mere couple of hours later, the author posted this anger-dripping response on my talk page:

I think it's poor of you to delete the Stir page I created. I think the band is back on the upswing. The music is available from allofmp3.com and mp3.com. I find it unfortunate that you find a piece of American pop culture, not on your radar. It's okay if the world passed you by some twenty years ago, but there are those of us that are here now and do care about bands that might only have footnote entries in American culture.

Please respond to this post here or on my user page. This seems like an unfair deletion. A still born birth. Completely unwarranted. The page that you deleted fits none of the "speedy deletion" guidelines. In this respect I feel that your administrator priveleges should be stripped. posted on user page by User:Krakrjak, moved by Alf melmac 09:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think a single misguided deletion warrants removal of AdministrativePower®, no matter how much I have hurt someone's feelings, I have to add this here to allow other administrators to express their point of view too. I don't vote either to overturn or enforce my deletion. JIP | Talk 10:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not an admin, so can't see the state of the article as deleted, but as it stands, it is probably not a speedy as mentioning two albums, one with a major label is enough of an assertion of notibility to not be a CSD A7. Obviously this is based on the article as it is now, but if that is the case, on hindsight (always 20/20 I know :), it might have been better to change the speedy to an afd, which it might fail, if the assertions don't stand up. That said, the creators response was well over the top, and the article itself requires sources to back up the claims it makes of "wide critical acclaim", "cemented themselves" and "unbelievable rendition", or, failing that, rewriting these comments in a neutral tone. Regards, MartinRe 10:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. At the very least, this should have gone to AfD, but the band surely meets a number of WP:MUSIC requirements and probably shouldn't have been speedied. I'd imagine you *could* overturn your own speedy, but it's here now, regardless.
• Undelete not being an admin I can't read the article, but from the comments above it appears that it easily meets WP:MUSIC Cynical 16:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist Clearly a contested speedy so no harm in AfD'ing, which I will do now, since someone has reposted the thing. Xoloz 16:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete & list on AfD, but warn user for incivility. Also, "back on the upswing" hardly sounds like a shoo-in for WP:NMG Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

24 March 2006

The Go

The article was deleted after this AFD. One of the claims was that the Jack White connection may have been a hoax. I managed to find verification of this by looking at the band's record label. One of the other claims in the AFD was that the band fails WP:MUSIC, which it clearly doesn't because of the presence of 1/2 of the White Stripes. Leithp 16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, doesn't look like the Jack White connection was weighed in the AfD. I'd say relist as well, but only if verification of a national tour can't be found. I wish I had caught this AfD when it occurred. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I see the need for relisting, given that the White Stripes connection alone allows it to pass WP:MUSIC doesn't it? For what it's worth there's this link to a band profile with footage of a couple of gigs in Texas and somewhere else. Leithp 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You and I are in agreement on this, I'm just thinking ahead - if it's going to be a straight undelete, I'd rather see it reach two or three WP:MUSIC guidelines. Given that the SubPop page gives a synopsis of a Detroit newspaper feature, I doubt this would have any problems in a relisting at this point anyway. badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Frankly, I'm surprised that a band on the influential Sub Pop label (home of Nirvana, Sonic Youth, Soundgarden, Saint Etienne, and many others) would be deleted at all, Jack White or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, AFD can be a little, uhh, over-zealous at times. Particularly with regard to bands, though I imagine this is because of the sheer volume of them that go through there. Leithp 16:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, I've have had to undelete three other bands on Sub Pop in the past (Cat Butt, The U-Men and Frausdots). They were all because of misapplications of WP:MUSIC as a CSD though, so I didn't have to go through deletion review. Leithp 23:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, relist This is almost to the point where I'd go with an outright keep result here, but I'd like to AfD learn from its mistakes, as contributors to the second debate will be reminded to be more careful. Besides, I suppose someone might argue over the finer points of WP:MUSIC. Xoloz 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm happy that you still have faith that the culture of AFD can change. It's endearing to a cynical soul such as myself. Leithp 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I won't defend the crew on AfD, this time they got it completely wrong. May be a case for a watercooler meeting of closing admins. The guys do solid and necessary work, but there are mistakes. Just zis Guy you know? 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeComment. I think I should weigh in on this one, as I was the original AFD nominator. The group listed on the SubPop page is NOT (I repeat, NOT) the same group that was in the AFD nomination. The latter Go is a group that claims to be INFLUENCED by 70s and 80s music. The Go affected by the AFD claimed to be ACTIVE in the 1970s (quite a difference in meaning there). I have no problem with the latter group being listed on any article due to notability, but the former article did not meet any criteria whatsoever. I spent quite a bit of time looking due to claims of performances at CGBGs and other significant clubs (playing at CGBGs itself is usually a sign of notability), but as you can see from the Google hits, no such mentions appeared. Additionally, there was no mention of Jack White or anyone else of note on that article, which if there was would have aided in proving notability. Combine that with the fact that the editors of the article in question were either IPs or one-shot editors gave us strong indicators of a hoax. So while the newer Go deserves its article, in no shape or form should the original article be returned.--み使い Mitsukai 20:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking through the history, what appears to have happened is this: You nominated the 70s band earlier this month and it was deleted following the AFD. A new article was then written on 16th March which contains the Jack Black reference, this was speedy deleted as a re-creation of the AFD article (which it clearly wasn't). The error seems to have been on the part of the speedy nominator and deleter, rather than the AFD crowd. My apologies. Of course the 16th March version, the one debated above, should be re-created. Leithp 12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on that, I agree the article can be recreated, as long as it's from that time frame and not the hoax version.--み使い Mitsukai 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Ummm, unless I have missed something here, Mitsukai's point seems to be well taken: perhaps the watercooler discussion should be reserved for the reviewers here. Eusebeus 11:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. This seems like a result of the policy change re: viewing deleted edits, more than anything else. -Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

John Fullerton

Article has been deleted twice. The first time after a debate which seemed to centre around the fact that sock-puppets got involved, damaging the subjects credibility, and the fact that I had failed to include the relevant references in the article. The second time I added the article I updated it with the references and fixed the introductory paragraph to highlight the subject's notability, yet it was speedy deleted as someone clearly confused it for an identical copy of the previous article. With references included, the subject met the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfullerton (talk • contribs)

• Endorse. Claims to notability made in the article are:
  1. Played a trial for Derry City F.C.. Someone who played a trial for Manchester United F.C. wouldn't deserve an article for that reason; neither does someone who played a trial for a much smaller club.
  2. Holds "record for the second-longest range goal scored from a free kick in the UK and Ireland". No such record exists; in fact there is no such thing as a record for second-best anything.
  3. Got funding for the (public) school where he works. Again, nothing particularly extraordinary about a government-funded school receiving government funds, even in the environment of Northern Ireland in the 1980s. If it was such a "notable achievement" as the article claims, then specific references and citations should be provided to substantiate this.
  4. Opened a restaurant.
  5. Received a past-pupils award from his school. This award does not have an article of its own, so it's not notable either.

  So while John Fullerton is undoubtedly an admirable character and a pillar of the community, he fails WP:N. For reference, here's the previous AfD. Disclaimer: I voted "Delete" on that AfD. Demiurge 11:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Keep deleted, for the reasons stated in the original AFD. Regarding his football career - he was on trial at these clubs, not a professional footballer. The "free-kick scored from the second-longest distance" is trivial in my opinion. As is being a "overhead kick specialist". I'm also wondering how a semi-professional team in the 1970s measured this as being the second longest? User:Johnfullerton created a page called "Overhead and Freekick Specialist" to justify this. It's since been deleted. Regarding his career in education - hundreds of teachers in hundreds of schools across the country have won funding, I don't see why on this occasion it is remarkable. Admirable, but not notable. In my opinion User:Johnfullerton is trying to justify this by stating quite dramatically that he "negotiated with the British government and brokered a deal". This makes it sound like he negotiated with the Prime Minister personally, which obviously isn't the case. The page is full of dramatic POV as well. In summary this is suitable for a St. Columb's school magazine, but not an encyclopedia. Who are the sock puppets being referred to? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: There are a number of important points to address here.

  i) One of Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion: Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport.

  Fullerton does not have to be a professional footballer to satisfy this. He merely has had to have played for Derry City, a full-time team. And that he did.

  ii) Of course there are records for second-bests. I'm sure Wikipedia have plenty of articles on, say, sprinters who never finished first in their field. Similarly, their times are recorded. Didn't talk of David Beckham's half-way line goal for Manchester United against Wimbledon a few seasons ago in the English Premier League continue seasons after? Of course, the distance he scored from has gone down in the record-books and it even gets a mention on his Wikipedia entry. Anyhow, this was the achievement which originally brought Fullerton into the spotlight in Northern Ireland as an upcoming talent (sadly that potential was hampered by injury). To back up my assertion that it is a record, it is compiled along with numerous other records in Fifa's centenial book. Therefore, the methods Derry City used to measure the distance aren't really that important, are they?

  iii) Specific references and citations have been provided. I cannot link to them directly as they are in print and not on the web. I would be grateful if this was acknowledged, as it has been continually ignored, to an offensive level by this stage.

  iv) His winning of the funding was a notable achievement in 1980s' Northern Ireland as a member of staff in a Roman Catholic school. Who are you to claim it is not? You are not even from the region. The nature of how the funding was won is what is so notable about this.

  I'll re-quote what I said on the article's discussion page: Of course being funded by the State isn't a notable achievement - it's the nature of how the funding was achieved in Fullerton's case that makes his stand out as a unique one. Walking down a street isn't noteworthy, yet Wikipedia has pages documenting the life/lives of, say, Martin Luther King, or other people who demonstrated publically for personal/popular causes. The nature of how they walked down streets and the ideas behind their actions are what made them notable - not the physical acts themselves.

  As you say, many others have won funding. However, what sets Fullerton's case out as being special is that he, along with Tony Furey, was/were the first to challenge the Government without the backing of the Catholic Church or its high-profile members on the school's board of governers. This set an important precedent and later influenced the allocation of funds to the development of a new school building for the Catholic Thornhill school and the setting up of a new Catholic school, Lumen Christi, in Derry. It was actual staff who took inspiration from Fullerton in these cases, rather than rely on the bulk of their investment coming from the Church. Previously, Catholic school's (in the face of prejudice, and fear of further discrimination) dared not challenge what they were allocated.

  Let me quote another criterion: Major local political figures.

  Fullerton meets this criterion. He is seen locally as an individual who broke down barriers and divides, which had been long-ingrained in the Northern Irish psyche, with dialogue. He has been commended for his use of peaceful and patient methods when many in the Nationalist community were sympathetic to the violent means of the IRA. As is mentioned in the article and in a book by Mahon, the reason often suggested as to why Fullerton is not as noteworthy as certain others in Northern Ireland was because some members of the Nationalist community frowned upon his playing of soccer. They saw it as a foreign game. Along with this, numerous others and many Republicans felt he was taking the soft approach with a Government who, they felt, needed to be taught a lesson of some sort and held by the scruff of the neck for remaining on Irish soil. They wanted Britain out and saw violence as the way to achieve this aim, whereas Fullerton's methods clearly demonstrated that he was, for now, content with living under and engaging with the 'foreign oppressor'.

  v) The restaurant is not a major issue, but he did win awards and it adds depth to the article.

  vi) The past-pupil award does not have an article of it's own as the St. Columb's College page suffices for that purpose. Any attempt to include Fullerton on that page has also been struck down.

  vii) Just to clear up a blatant lie above (it would be helpful if contributors to this continuing vandetta againt the subject got their facts right before firing), I did not create the "overhead and free kicking specialist" page that is talked of. And, the sockpuppets referred to are those who involved themselves in the original debate, severely damaging the subject's credibility. I have a feeling that word of the article probably made its way around Fullerton's school, resulting in excited pupils adding their word.--Johnfullerton 13:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • "i) One of Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion: Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport.
    Fullerton does not have to be a professional footballer to satisfy this. He merely has had to have played for Derry City, a full-time team. And that he did."

    Um, no. As stated: "Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league". Derry City play in the League of Ireland, which is not now and never has been a fully professional league. Bastun 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Query Are you, Johnfullerton, the same John Fullerton as the article is about? The username choice and user page content suggests some connection but writing in the third person above suggest otherwise. Could you please clarify, as it does affect notibility claims as per WP:AUTO Regards, MartinRe 15:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not Fullerton himself. I merely adopted the username to include the article the first time round. I suppose it was rather short-sighted of me to use the subject's name as my username, but anyway ...--Johnfullerton 15:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No worries, thanks for clarifying that. MartinRe 15:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I see no reason to overrule the afd that voted delete. As Demiurge put it, while admirable but not particlularly notable for an encylopedia. (The comparasion with David Beckam isn't a good one, as he's would be notable without that, I'd even suggest that the free kick is notable because it was by him, more then him being notable because of the free kick.) The free kick, PP award, resturant, and other triva do add depth, but once you you take out those items, there is very little left. For the funding issue, probably notable, but not enough for a stand alone article. Are there any verifible sources that say this was notable at the time, or list of funding stats to show that this was an unusual investment? (I'm not doubting that it is true, but WP:V is about verifibility, not truth, and it would also be important to find out who regarded it as notable). Also, the current article would need a lot of WP:NPOV work with terms like "wondrous", "huge influence", "pushed hard", "ridden to the core", etc. Overall, I'd stick to the afd, and keep it deleted. Sorry. MartinRe 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per MartinRe. Nominator, User:JohnFullerton, would have WP stretch its standards of notability to a great extreme. This is a tenuous proposition at AfD; here at DRV, it is almost surely condemned to fail, for DRV needs a reason to overturn the previous debate. Such reason is here lacking, as nominator essentially reargues the AfD. Xoloz 17:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• I would have to disagree. References were not included in the original article. They have now been added. The previous debate's closing administrator did not take these references into account.--Johnfullerton 17:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (Please note that I am the admin who most recently speedy deleted the article, and who suggested that the article's creator bring it here for community review. Therefore, would the closing admin please feel free to disregard my comments if s/he sees fit). I speedy deleted the article not because of any misunderstanding, but because I felt and feel that it was not substantially any closer to proving notability under WP:BIO than when it was deleted at AFD. The fact remains that the gentleman in question only played for a professional club on a trial basis and, AFAIC, all other claims to notability (such as opening a restuarant or securing some funding) are tenuous at best. --kingboyk 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse deletion and Strong keep deleted per everyone and Xoloz in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: added "strong" to vote, per Zoe's excellent research (see below) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. (I didn't take part in AFD for this article before) mikka (t) 23:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted, the hoaxing continues, I see. The AfD page gives a long and detailed description of the sordid attempts made by these St. Columb's kids to try to make their teacher notable when he isn't. I have deleted the recreation of the article and protected the page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion - a player from the League of Ireland would be notable enough to keep in Wikipedia, which after all, has no real limit on the amount of articles it can have. Don't forget that Ireland does not have big leagues like other countries.--File Éireann 18:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse, keep deleted. I remember this deletion debate vividly, subject of some of the most blatant astroturfing ever seen outside of Louisiana Baptist University. I spend a long time looking into this at the time and was then, and am now, solidly unconvinced that this subject is capable of being coverd neutrally from reliable sources. Definitely a case of WP:HOLE. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Query Is File Éireann an administrator? I don't see how his very valid point can be ignored. Is what he says not correct?--Johnfullerton 11:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, he is, but an administrator's opinion on a topic carries no more weight than that of any other regular Wikipedia editor. I am also an administrator, BTW. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And the second question you missed there?--Johnfullerton 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Opinions are not "correct" or "incorrect", so question is not relevent. Also, can you please remove the deleted article from your main user page as requested, as having a multiply deleted article about "John Fullerton" on a page called User:Johnfullerton is bound to cause confusion, and could well be seen as an attempt to circumvent the deletion policy by publishing it anyway. Article was userified to a user sub page, so won't be lost. Regards, MartinRe 07:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • But I'm not so sure that it is an opinion. Is it a fact or an opinion that players from the League of Ireland would be notable enough to keep in Wikipedia?--Johnfullerton 14:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
          • It's an opinion, as others have already disagreed with him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
            • So the fact is that players from the League of Ireland would be notable enough to feature in Wikipedia or not?--Johnfullerton 18:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Using the criterion you supplied above (Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league), then the answer is no. Derry City DC play in the Eircom League, which is not and never has been a professional league. And actually on the topic of 'Major local political figures' - surely that implies someone who has been elected, or, at least, who has run for office? Bastun 00:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
                • No, of course it doesn't imply such. You're just twisting definitions now. Also, care to explain why other League of Ireland players have articles on here? Some even being from Division One. And what about GAA players? Why do they have articles? They play in amateur competitions.--Johnfullerton 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Valid AfD. David | Talk 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the same reasons I voted delete back in December. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain and comment. It strikes me that editors are told there is virtually unlimited space in Wikipedia. While I can appreciate that not every thing, person or place that ever existed should necessarily be included in an Encyclopedia, there are two things that I would question: Firstly, that the person does appear to have done something, and secondly that a page of a couple of kilobytes would hardly affect Wiki too much. It appears that vastly more space has been taken up with discussion about the article's existence than the article itself. In past decades limits have had to be put on the number of articles an encylopedia could have, balanced against practical use and physical size. This is the 21st century though - a time when several translations of the Bible, illustrated and enhanced, can fit easily onto a single CD. Also, I would suggest that there might very well be people of less note included as articles in this 'pedia. I'll be interested to hear reactions to what I have said. In the meantime though, perhaps a compromise would be to find some other, related article, and include much of the information about this fella in it. --Mal 02:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please spend some time reading the many talk pages and archives on this topic. Space on the encyclopedia has very little to do with it. Verifiability and our ability to maintain the article over the long-term, however, are serious concerns. I recommend starting with the Talk pages of WP:BIO. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Feel free to re-read my comment. I don't feel I need to look through the history of discussion about this - its quite clear-cut: is this person notable enough to be worthy of the creation of an article, or not. I have outlined my thoughts on the matter, and suggested a possible compromise. --Mal 13:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I sent an email to St. Columb's College and asked them who their "Alumnus Illustrissimus" award recipient for the Past Pupils' Association was for the past three years, and I got a response from "D Carlin", who indicates that the 2004 award recipient was "all past pupils in honour of the school's 125th anniversary". This is in direct contradiction to the contention in the article that Fullerton won the award in that year. 2005's recipient was HE Ambassador James Sharkey. No award has yet been given for 2006. The previous award winners are listed on the St. Columb's home page. Therefore at least one of the supposed accomplishments of this non-notable soccer coach is revealed to be a lie. Now prove the rest. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how is that a contradiction, assuming Fullerton was indeed a past pupil? Wouldn't he be included among "all past pupils" and thus have received the award in 2004? (Note that I'm not suggesting it's notable considering the wide net cast!) Powers 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The article said, "In 2004 Fullerton won the Past Pupils' Association Alumnus Illustrissimus award for his work and special achievement and considerable contribution to the field of overhead and free kicking". It did not say that he won it for being a past student. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, I think my office should have an article. It contains a computer ("the computer" was Time Magazine's 1982 Man of the Year) and exists on Earth ("Earth" was the 1988 Man of the Year). I had no idea rooms in my house were so famous! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So, some more questions, now that the Alumnus award has been kicked out: Please provide evidence that he ever played for Derry City. The image in the article on your User page with all of the hair could be anybody. Please provide evidence that he was involved in the funding issue. We have yet to have seen a single supporting document. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Now you're disputing photographic evidence? Clearly the John Fullerton in both photos are the same person - one being a younger him (his Derry City days photograph) and the other being an older him (the awards photograph), of course. I don't see how your investigation has uncovered anything contrary to what the article states. He did win the award and he collected it at the awards event. Evidence of the funding issue has been provided.--Johnfullerton 15:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Every single past student came and picked up an award? I find that hard to believe. And I still have seen no documentation that he ever played for Derry City. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Zoe. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the whole thing is reeking of a hoax perpetuated by some pesky kids. And the pesky kids would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for AFD! That's right, kids, the worm is on the other boot. Proto||type 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

23 March 2006

Talk:Userbox

I'm not questioning deletion of Userbox itself; it was a cross-namespace redirect. It's wrong to blank the associated talk page, though; wrong to rd it to the corresponding (deleted) article; and very wrong to protect a talk page of any kind. I'd like to see pre-existing discussion (if any) restored; and the talk page left open for further discussion. It is possible that an encyclopedic article on Userboxes can be written; if so, there is only one right place to talk about it. I'm willing to see {{deletedpage}} protected on the article until substantial debate develops on talk -- but not to see talk forbidden. John Reid 21:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted Orphaned talkpages are speedyable Cynical 16:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If content originally on this page was a redirect or was moved, move talk page discussion to discussion page for destination. --carlb 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Control Monger

Speedied by User:Gator1 as recreated content, recreator alleges that defects in initial article that caused it to fail AFD were repaired. Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist "the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical." I can't ensure this, but when I looked at the article, I appeared to reference the major gaming pubs and was not written in the promotional style, which where the substantive objections. Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, relist. Substantially different. Just zis Guy you know? 00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, relist. When it is I'll vote delete - I'm not convinced that we should have every freely downloadable game that gets in what seem to be rather obscure online 'magazines' - but, as Guy said, this article is different from the ones that were discussed on AfD before. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. But not a WP:SNOW case, and the content was definitely more encyclopaedic than what was deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 21:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

California State Route 85

I disagree with the deletion of this redirect in order to move State Route 85 (California) over it. I do not feel that this page is the appropriate place to discuss this, as no content was lost, but Gentgeen, the deleting admin, does (for what seems to be process purposes, or possibly an attempt to avoid the issue). The discussion here is not whether to undelete or not; it is whether Gentgeen acted improperly by deleting the redirect. As I said to Gentgeen:

In [34] he denied my marking of State Route 35 (California) for speedy because "the reason given for speedy deletion is not one of the speedy deletion criteria". However, he just deleted California State Route 85 for the same reason.

Furthermore, in my case, the redirect I was trying to get deleted was a dickish "poor man's move protection", while the one he deleted had been edited due to the article being moved to multiple names before he tried to move it back. I have also been told to go to WP:RM, but past discussions have given no consensus, so the side to have a dickish action first is the de facto winner. (A current move discussion is at Talk:State Route 2 (California).)

I would like the following redirects to be deleted:

• State Route 15 (California)
• State Route 17 (California)
• State Route 35 (California)
• State Route 99 (California)
• State Route 130 (California)
• State Route 236 (California)

But as deletion policy does not allow for this, they probably will not be, in a show of double standards. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do nothing. There was consensus on where CA 85 should be from a previous vote.Gateman1997 16:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Groupthink, not consensus. I don't think you read my argument either - keep deleted is not an option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I'm not sure what this is about exactly. As I read what you've written, it appears you believe Gentgreen has acted inconsistently in deleting one redirect, but not allowing the deletion of another, even though the reasoning is identical. As a remedy, you request deletions of the redirects you wanted deleted. You want DRV (in effect) to "make Gentgreen consistent"... is that correct?

If so, your request is backwards. DRV could undelete what Gentgreen deleted as a way of "making him consistent", but any new deletion requests need to start at RfD before coming here. As phrased, your request is out-of-order.

I should add that I have no opinion on the actions of Gentgreen. He may well be justified, or not so. If you wish to have DRV undelete something (as we could do), you would need to rephrase your request above. Xoloz 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Gentgeen proposed taking the dispute here, and so I did. This is no longer VFU but DRV, and exists to review deletions, so I can see how it fits into the scope. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true there was a name change to expand purview a bit (DRV now reviews "keep" results, too), but this is still deletion review: I take review to mean that DRV does not delete ab initio. One would go to xfD for that. Xoloz 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as is This seems in order to me. The speedy delete seems correct under G6 (housekeeping) for stuff like "reversing a redirect". Your request to remove State Route 35 (California) appears at first glance to be similar, but as that would result in a name against the guideline expressed in WP:CASH#Article_Naming_Convention it would appear that it's a contravertisal move, hence not a speedy canditate, so, while a little untidy, the actions (delete and not) appear to be consistant. (PS the talk pages on the 85 pages are still messed up) MartinRe 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment The best place to discuss this would be at WP:CASH#Article_Naming_Convention, rather than at any one particular article, as it would be expected that all state routes would follow the same format, so individual article votes will only cause confusion, especially if they contradict each other, which they currently do. One suggestion could be to post a poll on the CASH page, and post a link to it on each CA route page. That should get enough input to get the guideline sorted once and for all, and then make all the titles consistant, with the backing of the majority (I don't think consensus can be reached here, as neither are "right", but one has to be chosen) MartinRe 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The move to California State Route 85 was also controversial, as it was in the middle of a move war. Wikiprojects do not override disambiguation guidelines. This is a double standard, no more. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There was a recent vote to move this page, it was opposed 8-2, and closed as "don't move" on 6 March. You moved the page anyway on March 9, and it was moved back by Elf. You moved it again on 23 March, and it was again moved back by Gentgeen (which you are complaining about). Moving a page back to its original name when a recent vote said "don't move" is not controversial to me. Moving a page a few days after a decisive move said not to, is. Housekeeping (deleting redirects) for non-controversial moves is a speedy, for controversial moves it is not. No double standards in my view. Regards, MartinRe 19:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That vote was to California Highway 85, not State Route 85 (California). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do nothing. I am not convinced anything is broken therefore I see nothing which needs fixing. Just zis Guy you know? 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do nothing, or refer to community. In effect, DRV is being asked to order a speedy deletion. Admins are not obliged to delete anything, even if it makes their actions inconsistent. Since a speedy-or-not does not come to an admin following a community mandate in a deletion debate, a not-speedy is not something that DRV has ever been empowered to reverse — there is, as Xoloz points out, nothing to review since nothing was actually done. Contrast a keep/no consensus AfD where something was done - the debate was explicitly closed by an editor interpreting community consensus. If anything, an admin is within process to refuse to speedy something and so the only thing DRV can sensibly do is endorse the do-nothing decision of the admin since it can't possibly have been out-of-process. Dealing with bad unilateral decisions by admins (i.e. those which were never based on a debate) is for AN, ANI, RfC etc. -Splash^talk 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep whatever the status quo is. DRV is not requested moves, and with the history surrounding these redirects/articles/whatever, it should not be the forum to decide it. Besides, redirects are cheap. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • On the redirect point, note that the underlying reason for this request is a running dispute over precisely which page(s) should be redirects. -Splash^talk 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And I'm aware of that, but I'm addressing that whatever the outcome of that is, there is simply not a reason to delete the other redirect. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do nothing Another part of SPUI's page move warring campaign. Also I'm not sure why this is here. WP:DRV is for reviewing deletions already made, but this request is for ordering deletions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

19 March 2006

Imaginary antecedent

The following comments were left on my user Talk page regarding the deletion of this article following an AfD review on March 7th. Looking over the undeletion policy, Oneismany has grounds for this request as they say that they were unaware of the AfD happening on this day and so didn't have the opportunity to give their opinion. I was the closing admin but I express no opinion either way on this deletion.  (aeropagitica)  20:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The deletion log says that you deleted imaginary antecedent on March 12. Did you see its previous article for deletion? The result of that discussion was no consensus. Was there any discussion about deleting the article this time around? I've been trying to find any discussion on deleting the article, but can't find one. How many times can deletion be debated or performed? Oneismany 16:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I found the discussion here. I would like to request a deletion review. I am sorry I didn't contribute to the March 7 discussion, but I was unaware of it because I did not know that the previous deletion discussion could be overruled without any notice. The article is already deleted, and this is the first I knew about it. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish to submit the following considerations for the advocation of a deletion review. Firstly although the article does admittedly need to be cleaned up and peer-reviewed and provide better citations, it is arguably not 'original research'. The article cites fiction and philosophical essays as its sources and does not contribute new information from outside these sources. Secondly although the number of Google hits mentioned in the deletion discussion is low, some of those hits are articles in alternate reference materials which have copied the Wikipedia text verbatim. At least one of them quotes an old version of the article, now without any reference to the updated version. Meanwhile, the attribution in these articles is lost because the attribution was only kept at the Wikipedia article. According to the GFDL, attributions and the history of changes to a text must be preserved. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the deletion be reviewed, and the article be replaced. With more work, I am sure this article can live up to Wikipedia standards. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Very few Ghits, with Wikipedia top (generally a bad sign). Looks a lot like a protologism, lack of sources noted at previous AfD and not rectified despite assertions that this not, as it appears to be, original research. Only appears to have one active editor, also not a great indicator of scientific robustness. Just zis Guy you know? 00:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "few Ghits" argument is weak, as there are many useful and encyclopedic topics with relatively few references on the internet. Also notice that the AfD mentions 93 google links, but now there are 192, an increase of 106% from 15 days ago (during the time that is has been deleted). Oneismany 07:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Oneismany 09:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment However, the article is collecting dust in its current form, and should be rewritten (and perhaps renamed) so as to invite more input from other editors. Oneismany 12:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Reading the original AfD, I see even there a consensus (and perhaps an admission on oneismany's part) that the term is original, even if the concept isn't. Hearing that logic from keep voters is depressing, as it supports an OR claim. A thorough reading of the November debate could have justified a deletion consensus on that ground at that time. Anyway, keep deleted under WP:SNOW if nothing else. This is original research. Wikipedia is not the place for novel combinations of source information. Article creator needs to get his term published: then it will belong here. Xoloz 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In theory both of the policies, 'no original research' and 'neutral point of view,' are equally important. However, sometimes in practice one policy must take priority over the other. I argue that the top priority is NPOV. Sometimes, for example, it is necessary to introduce neutrality to discuss a topic neutrally. Observe the '[this topic] in fiction' subsections of many articles. Fiction and philosophy, as well as religion and other contentious topics represent POV themselves and therefore that must be mentioned with the subject in the interests of NPOV. Typically fiction does not say 'this is fiction', but Wikipedia allows topics from fiction, and so it is necessary to introduce those topics from this point of view in order to be neutral. Perhaps the phrase 'imaginary antecedent' is novel (and perhaps the title could be changed), but the article attempts a neutral discussion of imaginary subjects (though it could use more input from alternate editors). Oneismany 12:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Imagine that frogs were in Wikipedia, but separately listed as fish and as lizards, because 'amphibian' was a previously unpublished term. When existing phrases do not accurately describe a subject, it is silly to use the inaccurate phrases or to leave the subject out of the encyclopedia. As long as the subject is well known, I argue that such examples fit under the 'apple pie' clause. Imaginary subjects are no new thing, but to leave them out of the encyclopedia is to misrepresent their novelty. Oneismany 09:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted per JzG & Xoloz. The second nomination was a valid AfD, and a no consensus on the first nomination is, by definition, a "weak" closure, hence it can be brought up for AfD at any time and the new results would override the old ones. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (and rename?) This article is copied verbatim in alternate secondary sources (which cite Wikipedia), but because the history of the article has been deleted along with the article, neither the attribution nor the history of changes is available to these sources. Denying this information for redistribution is a violation of the GFDL. However, if the history was available, the deletion might not violate the GFDL. (Unfortunately there is currently no place on Wikipedia for discontinued or unsupported articles. But, silly me, I didn't notice the 'history-only undeletion' option until now.) Oneismany 10:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Optionally, the article could be undeleted and renamed to 'imaginary subject,' 'imaginary object,' or 'imaginary' and its current contents rewritten as a subtopic of the broader topic. This would perhaps address the perceived obscurity of the topic. Oneismany 12:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted. An introduction of a new term is clear OR, even if it describes something already known: an new notion is a new generalization. mikka (t) 23:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. If the concept isn't WP:OR, but the name is, that's a sing that the page needs to be moved. Wikipedia being the top Google response is not a rare thing--search for almost any year (other than 1988) and you'll get Wikipedia's right at the top. At the least, temporarily undelete so that the content (whatever it was) could be merged, but really, this article ought to stay. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

18 March 2006

Template:People stub

• 10:39, 16 March 2006 . . Bucky-Convigton,
• 18:48, 16 March 2006 Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 16#Template:People stub
• 01:29, 17 March 2006 . . SPUI (redirect)
• 08:01, 17 March 2006 Grutness deleted "Template:People stub" (deliberate redundant (duplicate) stub type created by known vandal)
• 19:31, 17 March 2006 . . SPUI
• 02:58, 18 March 2006 Grutness deleted "Template:People stub" (huh? I thought I'd deleted this.)
• 03:33, 18 March 2006 Grutness protected Template:People stub (re-speedy-deleted speedily-recreated speedy deletion)

Uh... it's been protected blank, because Grutness didn't like it existing as a redirect to {{biography-stub}} {{biog-stub}} {{bio-stub}}. I thought we fixed this a while ago. Note that, in this case, the category is even Category:People stubs. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect this, obviously. It is a quite reasonable redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I'll point out that protecting a page against recreation b/c it's been recreated once is a little excessive. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Twice. Deleted through SFD; speedied when re-creation was listed for deletion at TFD, then speedied and protected when re-created again a few hours after that. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, never mind, the deletion log only appears to show two deletions though. What's with that? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirecting makes sense to me... I don't really understand the need to delete it. --W.marsh 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Chris and W.marsh. Redirect to {{bio-stub}}. —Encephalon 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Annulled. See below. —Encephalon 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• It was protected because it had been deleted after discussion at SFD. I speedied it when it was recreated - then SPUI re-created in a few minutes later. Protection seemed obvious in those circumstances. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now as a recreation of deleted content. No objection to listing on TfD SfD. SPUI should have come here when it was deleted the first time, instead of recreating it. Please also take note of the established consensus against template redirects. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Given the scheme for using "bio-" in the (very numerous) templates names for biographical stub types, and given that it's one of the few things we do manage to be consistent about, this is very much in danger of causing more confusion than it might palliate. I have no objection to stub redirects where there's most likely to be confusion, but as Aecis alludes to, there are "issues" with using them on a grand scale. (Besides, as SPUI doesn't use sorted stubs templates, and incites others not to use them either...) Alai 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. There's a consensus against template redirects? Where? I think that especially in the twisty maze of stub-sorting templates, we need all the redirects we can get. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The consensus against template redirects can be found on several places: at Miscellany for Deletion, at Stub types for Deletion, at Redirects for Deletion, at Deletion Review, at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Stub sorting, at the Village Pump and at several user talk pages. I'll see if I can find the relevant discussions in the archives tomorrow. Template redirects put an excessive burden on the servers, much more so than article redirects. That's why we need to be very reluctant in using template redirects. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:AUM, the basis for this supposed "excessive burden", is no longer policy, after one of the developers weighed in. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • AUM was part of the reasoning, but it has never been the be all and end all. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted per Alai, Aecis and Grutness. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• There are templete re-directs out the arse, last I looked. I also note that my understanding of the server burden mirrors SPUI's in that at least one dev has said it's not an issue. I'd like to hear more exposition from SPUI about the advantage of this, though.
  brenneman^{L} 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The point is to make it easier to get the right stub type. Whether or not this is an advantage depends on one's view of stub sorting. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Given that a stub type is, by definition, both category and template, that's exactly half right: it's making it easier to get the right category, and the wrong template. WSS's strategy is to use try to make the template names as consistent as possible, and only use duplicated or redirected templates where there's inherent variation in spelling, residual inconsistency in the existing names, etc. SPUI's apparent strategy is to use a redirects-to-articles pattern, and to advocate duplicate templates for just about any possible variation in name, abbreviation, spelling, hyphenation, etc. That's either going to mean we create a huge number of them -- multiply around 2000 templates by all the variations you can think of; or that inconsistency between them increases, and hence likelihood of getting the names of other, similar, stub types wrong. Or more likely, some combination of the two. All of the "people"/"biographical" stub types use "bio-" in their template names (and there are literally hundreds of them): this is a pattern worth being as consistent and as clear as possible about. Alai 05:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I can see the merits of that argument, but it appears that it should have been made at the TfD. So we've got an over-enthusiastic speedy deletion of something that should have been deleted followed by a recreation as a redirect that may or may not be a bad thing but that should have been brought here followed by another speedy deletion of something that doesn't appear to meet a criterion because the TfD was closed early and then a page protection because something was re-created once. Is that pretty much it? - brenneman^{L} 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • If you want to be processist about it, it should have been made at WP:SFD (unless you want to argue that it fails the stub naming guidelines so clearly as to not qualify as such). I don't know if I'd stipulate "over-enthusiastic"; what degree of enthusiasm would have been correct? After that, I start to feel the need for the odd comma, but the sequence appears to be correct, the value judgements I'm less clear about. I think "trouble-making recreation to make a WP:POINT" is worth a mention someplace in there, though. Alai 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually it should have been at WP:RFD. We went through this a while ago. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
            • No, you went through this a while ago, and it was soundly and overwhelmingly stated that stub redirects, being stub types, should go to SfD. It was discussed on SfD talk, on RfD talk, and if I'm not mistaken on the Village Pump as well. There's no need to start beating this euthanized horse again. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm sorry, I made a mistake here. Like Chris, I was unaware of the previous history of the template—thanks to whoever placed it at the top. This was headed for a delete consensus at TfD when it was speedily deleted, probably out-of-process (I know of no CSD that allows templates to be deleted because the person who created it vandalized WP in the past). SPUI re-created; it was redeleted. The arguments concerning server strain, while interesting, lead to perenially unaswered questions. Irrespective of whether or not a template redirect increases server strain, isn't the crux of the matter this: what value is there in redirecting this template? If there is net value to the encyclopedia (ie. the main space), then redirect without concern for the servers. Brion has made that much clear: if something is necessary for the well-being of the 'pedia, do it. Don't let server strain enter into your deliberations over encyclopedia policy issues. Now, the above question needs an answer, and the best place to get that answer, it seems to me, is the place where WPns with an interest in these issues sit down for a chat. Ie, SFD. So relist at SfD, please. Regards —Encephalon 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not make a mistake - a consensus to delete on TFD does not preclude a redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not sure I agree, SPUI. Firstly there wasn't a consensus to delete—it was heading that way, but the thing was speedily deleted within about 13 hours of placement on TFD. Secondly, I hardly think people who've asked, overwhelmingly, for a template to be deleted would be very impressed with the suggestion that keeping and redirecting it is somehow an equivalent outcome. The issue here is plainly: what use is this template as a redirect? The more I think about it, the less it makes sense to maintain a template purely as a redirect. If there are reasons for it with this class of template, they are best weighed at the interested forum, ie SFD. —Encephalon 02:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or relist or whatever the good one is. Ashibaka tock 05:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, that doesn't quite narrow things down very much, Ashibaka. :-) —Encephalon 02:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, invite SPUI to find something productive to do. For a change. Just zis Guy you know? 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, I suppose. Things shouldn't be speedied without a good reason. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Aajonus Vonderplanitz

The above article, started by myself, was deleted by User:JzG without prior warning or discussion. In the deletion review I discovered that someone had started the article before some time ago, and then had been deleted later. The article is about a verifiable individual who is also a published author, so I see no grounds for such deletion, especially since I was still continuing work on the article and preparing to add sources (and I had already added three web links). I request that the deletion be reviewed and that the article be undeleted if possible. SouthernComfort 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify, this was first deleted as the result of this AFD discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal Diet. It was deleted on 3 Feb 06. You recreated the article today (17 March). JzG speedy-deleted it as a re-creation of previously deleted content. Comparing the two versions, I do not suspect that you simply reposted the deleted content but I also see no evidence yet to justify overturning the prior deletion decision, particularly not so soon after the first decision was just made. Rossami (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Vonderplanitz gets 32,400 Google hits [35] and he is a published author, and regardless of whether one considers him a "diet guru" or what have you, he is a notable figure, particularly in the raw food movement. For others to claim that he is not "notable" of inclusion in WP is bizarre considering that this is simply their POV, especially considering that there are many other individuals with articles on WP who many might not consider "notable." My only concern is that information not be censored about diets and figures that others may not agree with or consider fringe (which again, would be their POV). Best regards, SouthernComfort 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: I did actually compare the new article with the deleted one, in my view they were substantially similar, and the new article did not make new claims of notability. But it was only a quick check, mostly it was a new article appearing straight on my watchlist, which means new content at deleted site. So I advised SouthernComfort to bring it here. Last time round I seem to recall that someone wanted the content rescued to their user space for rework, I don't believe that has happened yet. Just zis Guy you know? 18:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I also don't see a reason for an article on the guy. Google hits don't mean much. If there were substantial third party verifiable evidence of his importance I'd be listening. That we may have articles on other people we don't need isn't a reason to have more. - Taxman ^Talk 15:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• What new evidence of substance is presented over and above that which was discussed at the recent AfD? Is there evidence of significant non-promotional coverage? Just zis Guy you know? 17:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Non-promotional coverage"? The basic gist that I got out of the AfD was that some editors felt that the article was too promotional or an advertisement or whatever - as I have stated, I have never seen that previous article so I cannot comment. The article that I had started was not promotional in any shape or form, nor did I have any intention to start that sort of article - I certainly hope no one is suggesting that I have that sort of intention. Here are two "third-party" links regarding Vonderplanitz, one from the L.A. Weekly [36] and one from the L.A. Times [37].

Again, I'm not sure why Taxman is questioning his "importance," which is totally subjective? It's a strange thing to say because there are so many articles on WP for various individuals of varying degrees of notability and reknown - and certainly not all of them are as famous as the President or Bill Gates, but they still deserve an article. I don't agree with these deletionist ideas. As long as an article adheres to NPOV and actually contains substance, what is the problem? Just because the guy is a "diet guru" (of an arguably "fringe" diet), we should not have an article for him on WP - come on, it's an interesting subject. =) SouthernComfort 19:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me will know that I am notable enough to have my own article. The problem is that not enough Wikipedians know me, know about me, or care about an article's contents and so it would be hard to ensure the article is maintainted to Wikipedian ideals of accuracy and independence. I have hundreds of articles about me. This problem will go away as Wikipedia gains readers and as I gain fame. The question I have about your guy is: Are there enough independent articles to ensure NPOV and accuracy can be independently verified, and are enough people interested to ensure continuing accuracy? Stephen B Streater 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Undelete. The person is clearly notable, from the information given. There remain people on these boards who want to keep everything "new-agey" or occultic off of Wikipedia, and these people are simply pushing their own POV. Consider the people who tried to delete Gene Ray, Dogon or John Titor (including Egil). Let's write a good article on this guy and be proud that a complete Wikipedia includes articles on topics such as this. Wiwaxia 04:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board, it's an encyclopaedia. It exisst to document what is already known and significant. Just zis Guy you know? 00:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Relist (or basically, Undelete). Why is AV not being considered a "real" person of note in the raw food arena? Five minutes online reveals:

• He is the author of two books listed at Amazon.com.
• The 2001 National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Report report, "Genetically Modified Food and the Consumer", published on a Corenell U (cornell.edu) site, refers to him as. "Proclaimed nutritionist Aajonus Vonderplanitz and a raw-milk farmer" and goes on to quote him and cite his work.
• Spin (magazine) magazine mentions him in a Feb-1999 article, Gastronauts Part 2.
• He was the subject of a feature segment on Episode #314 (25-Sep-2002) of Ripley's Believe It or Not prime time hit US TV show.

From the AfD comments ("snake oil" and the like), there does seem to be a knee-jerk "no crackpots" reaction not based on any research. --Tsavage 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the books: I checked Amazon and they are published by "Carnelian Bay", but I can't find a publisher of that name. Maybe the fact that one of them is bound in "plastic comb" explains this? Also funny you should mention Google Scholar: there appear to be no citations to Vonderplanitz, suggesitg that the scientific community does not consider his work significant. But this is not about the subject, it's about reviewing the process. Which was valid, and no new data and no reliable secondary sources have been presented. Just zis Guy you know? 00:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with plastic comb publishing? Is there a bookbinding standard? I mean, it's kinda like saying, "what about an encyclopedia written entirely by anonymous editors?" I think here, if it's good enough for the world's biggest bookseller...: "Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com." By sales rank, it roughly matches or outsells most various editions of the Atkins Diet, the Scarsdale Diet, and the King James Bible...

The publisher is Carnelian Bay Castle Press, LLC, quite easy to find. Is there some sort of restriction on independent publishers, like, corporate multinationals only?

Process: Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding these: "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.", "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."

Why the derisive tone? Raw food is an interesting area. AV may be a crackpot or charlatan or both, but that is not established. What is is that millions of people have heard of him (what if a Ripley's viewer wanted to check out more about him?), he has been noted in mainstream media, he is notable enough to be quoted in at least one scholarly report, he has a body of work including a diet plan that people follow ("Mann is one of 3,000 Southern Californian devotees of the 53-year-old Vonderplanitz," LA Weekly 16-Mar-2001...I don't understand why should WP readers be prohbited from learning about him? And, IMO, Obscure content isn't harmful... --Tsavage 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, since raw food is a rather established concept (1.86 million hits on exact phrase "raw food", 572,000 on exact phrase "raw food diet"), with a fairly substantial article in WP, are we not to mention AV in that article? And if he is allowed to be mentioned, can we not wikilink his name? In fact, there is already a paragraph on him in raw food diet, so I wikilinked it, and it now points to... A quick, common sense look at the basic Web-available material should have cleared this up a couple of processes ago... --Tsavage 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have an article on raw food diet. The existence of a concept does not oblige us to carry an article on every crank theorist associated with it. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How exactly have you determined that AV is a crank? You sound like judge and jury here, and this seems more like a virtual tar and feathering. Have you researched this guy? With half the population getting cancer, gazillions of people on psychiatric drugs, everything from asthma to Alzheimer's on the sharp, unexplained increase, you'd think that just about any and all nutritional and health-oriented information and alternatives would be of at least passing educational interest and fit encyclopedic fare for a compendium of all knowledge. We're featuring articles on individual pop songs and video game characters, and you want to eliminate raw foodists? Yikes. --Tsavage 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well said and I completely agree. We have three editors now (myself included) who believe that the article should be undeleted - why hasn't this been done already? SouthernComfort 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is absurd. In what way is following up the references for a published author and finding them to be, well, shall we say, not in the same league as Joyce, "tarring and feathering"? Your statement linking raw food diets to cancer indicates that you have an agenda here; what is my agenda supposed to be, and why? Just zis Guy you know? 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda. I don't know AV. I did do some quick research which convinced me he is of some encyclopedic interest. I didn't link raw food diets to cancer, I attempted to place editorial decisionmaking in a real-world context, i.e. the book is so far from closed on "medecine", "nutrition", "health care", that we shouldn't be limiting info on non-mainstream approaches. We shouldn't forget that the "mother of all encyclopedias" kinda has an obligation to cover the nooks and crannies and give everything a fair shake. Deleting high school garage bands and brand new shareware programs or whatever from WP is one thing, trying to remove articles based on "he's a crank" (and NOTHING more has been presented here or in the AfD) seems editorially shortsighted and wrong-spirited. IMHO. --Tsavage 04:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Somewhat to my surprise, that last argument has convinced me. Vonderplanitz may be relatively non-notable, but an article about him has some merit that I find utterly lacking in much of the popculturecruft here. No, I'm not advocating a race to the bottom--I just think this article deserves a place in the marketplace of ideas. Hopefully it will improve and acquire some better references though. · rodii · 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. This has already failed AFD once. Rather than review the speedy deletion, the original author could have contested the original deletion debate. However, the speedy deletion is valid as the recreation of AFD'd material is a valid candidate. --DDG 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What "recreation"? I didn't recreate anything - I started a new article. I had nothing to do with the previously deleted version of which I had no knowledge of. So they were two different articles started by two different editors. Nothing was recreated, as I've stated a number of times before. SouthernComfort 02:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The new article was an article on a deleted subject. Since both were very short (there being little if any verifiable biographical detail with which to expand it, apparently), the two were simlar enough to be called a repost. Just zis Guy you know? 09:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you really didn't give me much of a chance to expand the article, did you? Or even a fair warning would have been nice, that you would list the article for deletion if not expanded with "verifiable" data. On the other hand, there's another editor (Taxman) who claims that "verifiability" isn't an issue here, that the man simply isn't worthy enough to have a WP article. This is absurd. This article should have been undeleted by now - if you want to relist it on AfD, that's fine with me. The most likely outcome this time would be "no consensus," thus allowing the article to survive, and rightly so. SouthernComfort 06:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. No new convincing reasons for the article to exist. mikka (t) 23:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, there are no old convincing reasons, or substantive reasoning at all, for the original deletion, which was of "Primal Diet", with AV rolled in as a bonus delete. --Tsavage 00:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist. Article contents seem valid, "Aajonus Vonderplanitz" gets over 20 thousand Google hits. JIP | Talk 10:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist per JIP. JoshuaZ 17:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Just zis Guy you know. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is unbelievable. What are people voting on? The original AfD, which was a two-for-one with AV rolled into Primal diat, was 8-5 for deletion (with two "weak deletes"), and the ONLY attempts at providing reasons for deletion were:

• "snake oil. User has no contributions on other subjects" Don't like the diet (and the editor is a "suspect" as well)?
• "infomercial for fad diet." followed up with a later comment "Yeah, you get E Coli from uncooked pork and then you puke your guts out, for a loss of twelve lbs in only four gut-wrenching days and nights." This IS based on NOT LIKING THE DIET!
• "Ah yes, the old australopithecine weight reduction program Ah, so you don't like the diet...?!?!?!

Meanwhile, if the arguments and press and whatnot above aren't enough, AV would seem to pass THREE of the tests in Wikipedia:Notability (people):

• Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events Clearly from the press and Ripley's (a dedicated segment reaching millions), his "raw food eating" has gained him newsworthiness and notoriety at least, and over a period of years.
• Google test" 27,000 hits is certainly not insignificant for someone supposed to be obscure to the point of deletion
• Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more It's reasonable to assume, with his two books alone at Amazon, that he has an audience of 5K...

These are WP guideline tests, and "passing" any ONE is supposed to be a reasonable indication of notability. I don't understand what people are arguing about here. Can articles be deleted by a narrow margin vote, just because half a dozen people decide that they simply DON'T LIKE THEM, for no real reason except...instinct? Gut reaction? I guess so... --Tsavage 04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

17 March 2006

Gilles Trehin

• Deleted as "CSD A7" (ie. speedy deletion as unnatable) (Deletion log). I do not know if this page is acceptable as an outside source - Skysmith 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list at AfD The source is not unimpeachable, being somewhat autobiographical; it is, however, proof enough of a claim to notability. Debate at AfD is warranted. Xoloz 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A non-notable bio is certainly A7 material; this is blatant self-promotion going against WP:NOT. Harro5 02:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not Trehin, if that's what you are suggesting - Skysmith 11:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, no obvious claim to notability. Around 600 Ghits, far fewer than I get. Just zis Guy you know? 18:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse appears to have no claim to notability whatsoever - and I don't think creating an "imaginary city" counts (was it popular? Relevant to society in some way?). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I will say that acedemically it could be important for the savant-related articles - but even then you could maybe write two sentences max because there really isn't that much real information yet there in the first place. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When listed for SD it contained no other claim to notability than that the guy had built an imaginary city in his head. And frankly, who hasn't? It takes a bit of stubbornness to keep doing it for years in a single continuity, but that also is not really notable. Henning Makholm 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Even that does not really mark him out from other Aspies. It kind of goes with the territory. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on Gilles Trehin (correctly Gilles Tréhin).This is an interesting case. The subject is a Frenchman diagnosed at age 8 (c.1982) with autism. At that time or later, it was also realized that he had savant syndrome (the two are not the same, although very closely associated). Savant syndrome is really quite rare: only about 10% of autistic persons (and less than one percent of all mentally retarded people) are, also, savants. There is a long tradition of medical writing on savant syndrome, in both the professional and lay literature. More generally, patients with interesting or noteworthy attributes, and/or who have been the subject of extensive research, are often written up (usually pseudonymously); in certain cases where there is a large literature, these writings may easily serve as good sources for writing a perfectly acceptable encyclopedia entry.

  The important question here is whether such sources exist for Mr. Tréhin. Unfortunately, there are no papers in the NCBI online database that contain the word "Urville" (the name of the richly imagined metropolis Trehin has devoted his artistic genius to portraying); nor does anyone seem to have written about him by name. One physician who appears to have had an association with Trehin, perhaps as a consultant when Trehin lived in America, is Darold Treffert MD, an expert on savant syndrome. Treffert has no indexed publications on Trehin that I can see.

  There appear to be three candidate sources, however.

1. The autobiographical account at http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/gilles.cfm
2. the personal website http://urville.com, and
3. two pages at Jessica Kingsley Publishers (http://www.jkp.com/catalogue/book.php/isbn/9781843104193 and http://www.jkp.com/catalogue/author.php/id/1412)

The first two are accounts by the subject. The personal homepage in particular is a poor source for an encyclopedia article, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources (there are narrow, limited uses for which personal pages, blogs etc can serve as sources, in my opinion, but that's another discussion for some other time). The account at http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/gilles.cfm has a subtly different status: it is published by the Wisconsin Medical Society, and therefore bears its imprimatur. Nevertheless, it is a telling of the story by the subject himself: it contains no commentary on the subject by a third party, no disinterested observation and description, no analysis, no contextualizing of the patient's disorder. It is a naked autobiographical account—the word of the subject.

The final source is the only one with some independence. Turns out Tréhin is going to have a book published; it will contain images of his drawings, and notes on his imagined cultural and social history of Urville. The book is due out this year.

So, where does this leave us? The fundamental questions to answer when deciding whether we should have a page on a subject are the usual ones: Has the subject been studied and/or reported on to a sufficient degree such that there exist independent works, in reputable publications, devoted to it? Is it possible, given the available primary/secondary/tertiary sources on the subject, to write an encyclopedic entry on it? Is the subject of such importance, significance or notability that not having a page on it would be distinctly suboptimal for an encyclopedia?

IMO we can't yet write an encyclopedia entry on this gentleman. There is only one independent source—the publisher's page. And that source is really not on Tréhin; it's on his upcoming book. A notice of publication cannot serve as the backbone source for an article on a person—it tells us little of a person's life, and is not designed or intended to do so. No person other than Tréhin himself has written about Tréhin—there is no better indication that the source requirements for an encyclopedic entry can't as yet be met. It is possible that it will be met in future—if his book is a success for example, people may start to report or write on him. —Encephalon 20:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on speedy deletion under A7. It may be clear from the preceding that something here isn't quite right. The place for this kind of talk is really AFD. The question of whether Tréhin deserves an entry is not straightforward, and therefore needs deliberation in a forum of Wikipedians who can hopefully come to a consensus on the issue after a few days. Now, I have not the slightest doubt that the good administrator who SD'd this did so in the best of faith. A7 has been difficult for a long time (see for example), and will continue to be so because we cannot define "notability" in a way that will make it completely unambiguous for the purposes of a speedy. The safest bar is therefore a pretty low one—you speedy under A7 only when there's no doubt ("Joe Smith is 10 and likes to play chess with his dad. He goes to school at XYZ. He also plays [computer game] with his friends.") Xolox has the right instinct here, as usual. —Encephalon 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm personally hoping that A7 can be completely encompassed within the PROD guidelines when we certify that PROD is here to stay, but that's for over there and not here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that in reality this is basically a clear A7, as the only thing here that asserts notability is that he is a autistic savant, which, well, isn't really an assertion to notability at all. Plus the whole thing is most likely vanity and SPAM for an upcoming book to boot. Oh, and the 10% figure for autistic people is silly and only something you'd find on wikipedia (believe me, I've removed that figure countless times from the autism articles and its never once been sourced...) :). Now if he had a successful book, heck even a book at all, this would probably be AfD material... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The encyclopediability of a page on a savant with a less common savant skill, mention on a medical society website, an upcoming book, and possible description in the medical literature is better discussed in AFD, not deleted by one admin IMHO. I wonder if the admin searched the literature before deleting. Would an early version of Patient HM also have qualified as a speedy, if mention wasn't made of Milner's research? I'm not saying this page should be kept, and I've already explained why at length. I'm saying that the decision to keep or delete would probably be better made via AFD. I do understand the constraints that we work under, of course, as well as the different interpretations of A7.

      Wrt vanity, yes, it's possible that the article was begun by someone with a strong conflict of interest. However, vanity is not a reason for deletion (see WP:VANITY).

      There has been a source for the 10% figure for the last 30 years, RN. See Rimland, B. (1978). Savant capabilities of autistic children and their cognitive implications. In G. Serban (Ed.), Cognitive defects in the development of mental illness (pp. 43–65). New York: Brunner-Mazel. Rimland studied 5400 children with autism, of which 531 (9.8%) were found to be savants. There were problems with the study, and there are few epidemiologic studies on savant syndrome and its prevalence among those with autistic spectrum disorder (very much risen in incidence, now); the validity of the figure is therefore not clear, but it is among the very few data we have on the question. Irrespective of the precise figure, the point is that savant syndrome is rare. Kind regards —Encephalon 23:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

      • Well said. And really, my writing may seem forceful at times but usually I am on the edge of such things. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The article on Urville has been overwhelmingly deleted in a recently closed AfD vote. Harro5 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As I said on the Urville AFD, "He has a book (ISBN 1843104199). Channel 4 has a short documentary on him available here. He in mentioned in this article form Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. I'm not exactly disagreeing with the SD of the article though, as it did not profess any notability at all." I haven't read the peer-reviewed journal article, but it does mention him. Is that enough to be notable? I think it is borderline on the side of yes. kotepho 19:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

12 March 2006

Userboxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There is an interesting debate to be had about the utility and propriety of cross-space redirects of this kind, given the usual allowance for WP: redirects. Undelete/list at RfD, though (for once) I don't think Mr. Sidaway's speedy deletion was particularly egregious; it is something a could imagine a normal responsible administrator doing. Xoloz 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This already went through RfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Either redirect or short description with links. Then protect if necessary. It will make it much easier to find the userbox page(s). --Singkong2005 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure why it was deleted rather than just altered to point to WP:UBX (use of WP: redirects being common practice), but it might be because redirecting to WP:UBX would cause a double redirect. Right now, incidentally, Userboxes is a broken redirect. It points to Userbox which is an empty, protected page. I'm generally against cross-namespace redirects. --kingboyk 10:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all cross-space redirects should start with WP: prefix. --Doc ^ask? 11:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Then why have you all still not deleted ArbCom, Disambiguation, NPOV, or any of the other cross-space redirects? I find it impossible to continue to assume good faith considering the strong anti-userbox stance of most of the users voting "delete" here. This is an obvious witchhunt. -Silence 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Because I haven't deleted anything at all, but I will consistantly vote to delete all cross-space redirects that don't begin with WP, whether they regard userboxes or not. If you find it impossible to assume good faith, then please leave this project, because assuming good faith is pretty core to it. --Doc ^ask? 23:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Tony's protestations of serendipity aside, I see no difference between Userbox/Userboxes and Disambiguation, CotW, NPOV, etc. Until someone can come up with a reasonable candidate for an article here, it's a harmless redirect (and I came down on the side against most of the Userboxen). -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this harmless redirect please Yuckfoo 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony and Doc. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remarks:
  1. Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect states that a redirect is deletable when

     It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace.

  2. Mildly amusingly, the very same section, in keeping with the old WP instinct not to have most rules set down in very hard stone, avers

     (...avoid deleting redirects if) someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

  3. The first rule is essentially not observed: the WP: style shortcuts are each and all cross-space redirects from the main space to the Wikipedia space. But further, as Haukur and Silence point out, the WP: style redirects are not the only cross-space redirects. I looked for some historical precedent on this type of redirect, and found Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Precedents#Should redirects to other spaces be kept?, which, if nothing else, honestly displays the truth that we have no solid ground to tread on here, but have to decide on an individual basis by discussion in the appropriate forum.
  4. Both Userbox and Userboxes were nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, and closed by freakofnurture on March 7—verdict delete. So the folks who've been speedying this as a recreation have not been wrong to do so. I'm not especially convinced by the RfDs, however: the few editors who asked for deletes said "Delete all cross-namespace redirects" which is both inappropriate and bereft of any reasoning. Therefore I don't see a basis for the close.
  5. In my opinion, using the precedents as a guide, the (non-WP:) cross-space redirects that we keep are those to highly-used WPspace pages, especially those known by a particular catch phrase or term (eg. NPOV, Wikipedia is not paper, ArbCom). I don't see why Userboxes is any different, especially in the light of recent events (the page will have to watched very closely to ensure it is not put to stupid uses, but this goes for most things on WP). Personally I would prefer that the article space be kept entirely free of non-WP: cross-space redirects for structural reasons, but as such a thing is unlikely to come to pass any time soon, leaving such redirects in place where they are useful does not appear to me unreasonable. —Encephalon 04:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whilst I respect the views of all of those expressed above who would wish to keep this page delted I think it is simply lunacy. When people use Wikipedia they do not want to have to remember whether this page comes under official Wiki policy etc. they simply want to get to their page. I think a disambiguation page case could be made, as there should be a link at least to WP:UBX. The argument that has been put above about the other execptions to a Wikipedia rule should either be changed in line with the policy applied to the userbox page (which I think seems very silly line to go down, as Wikipedia should be easy to use, and not rely on inflexible policies, when the key factor should be ease of usability). I think that the deltion of the page sets a dangerous precednet, and in the end the whole page should be reverted page to its original state. --Wisden17 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; a few cross-space redirects are okay. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Category:Roman Catholic actors, speedy deletion reversed; relisted for further consideration at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31#Category:Roman_Catholic_actors. March 31 2006
5. Politics of Imperial China kept deleted. 2006 March 31
6. Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) restored. 2006 March 30
7. Peter_Fletcher kept deleted. 2006 March 30
8. 4000 (band) kept deleted. 2006 March 30
9. Charles James Abbott kept deleted. 2006 March 30
10. Gas station restroom userfied and kept deleted. 2006 March 30
11. OBJECTIVE:_Christian_Ministries speedy deletion reverted by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 13:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Stephen Glicker deletion closure endored, kept deleted. 17:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Kat Desktop Search Environment deletion overturned, undeleted, relisting is optional. 17:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
14. House humping deletion closure endorsed, kept deleted. 17:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
15. United Hardware speedy overturned, sent to AfD. 17:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Arc Flashlights deletion endorsed, without prejudice to improved recreation. 17:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Colignatus deletion endorsed. 17:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Arthur Lichte speedy undeleted as clear misunderstanding. 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Petrodollar warfare overturned and undeleted. 22:40, March 17, 2006 (UTC)
20. Michael Crook keep endorsed. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Azure Sheep deletion endorsed. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Samurang undel'd, sent back to afd. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. If you nominate an article here, be sure to make a note on the sysop's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template, {{subst:DRVNote}} is available to make this easier.

Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Content review

Editors who wish to see the content of a deleted article may place a request here. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted. As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using Special:Export, and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the import feature is completed.

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

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• Category:Political divisions of the United States and its Talk. This was apparently deleted last year without going trhough the usual CfR process, and the history would be useful in the current CfR debate. --William Allen Simpson 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. If you couldt tag it for speedy or ping my talk once you're done. -Splash^talk 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 May 24}}</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 May 24}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 24|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

4 April 2006

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin1

Administrators shouldn't be deleting RFCs on themselves, even when the process is completed. Not only does it set a bad precedent, but it's important to keep RFCs available for archival purposes (just as we do with AFDs and all other such debates). 168.30.204.197 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• We specifically allow for -- in fact, expect -- the deletion of user RFC's that aren't certified. That's the case here. The RFC itself was originally deleted in July of 2005. However, it was temporarily undeleted in September for use in an arbcom case. The arbcom case closed long ago, so it was appropriate to re-delete the original RFC. I see no conflict of interest; any admin could have deleted the RFC at any time - it was just overlooked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I was one of the original strong opposers to deleting uncertified RfCs, but since it is now policy, I will endorse based on this policy regardless of whether I agree with it or not. The fact remains that SlimVirgin's RfC was uncertified and was explicitly restored temporarily until the arbitration case was over (The restored RfC's header read: RESTORED TEMPORARILY AS EVIDENCE IN AN ARBITRATION CASE Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor Fred Bauder 13:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)). The arbitration case was over, so the deletion was entirely appropriate. In hindsight, asking another admin to delete might keep up the appearance of impartiality, but I honestly think SlimVirgin was well within her rights to delete the uncertified RfC. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per jpgordon --FloNight ^talk 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Standard practice; as jpgordon. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and see this as such an obvious call that there was no reason for Slim to need to ask another admin to do it. JoshuaZ 18:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per jpgordon. Guettarda 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per jpgordon. Xoloz 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Deathphoenix. Thryduulf 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article

This template debate was closed and deleted by User:Raul654, but I don't think there is a consensus to delete. The final numerical results stand at 32 for delete, 28 for keep, and 4 for neutral/comment, so it should have been closed as no consensus. The differing opinions were all spread throughout the discussion, with little domination of keep or delete in any place. -- King of Hearts ^talk 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• IT was deleted because the template flatly violates policy, and the people who created it (and voted not to delete it) don't seem to care (and have not, in point of fact, even tried to offer an explination for why it doesn't violate policy) Raul654 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine, and I'm voting with you, too. Next time, though, I think it would be a good idea if you included that rationale in the closing. Xoloz 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/kd The only point of process with which I quibble is above. In discussions as extensive as this, with allegations of vote-stacking, a thorough examination of the arguments and their merits is absolutely necessary. Based on his remark, I have faith Raul did this. Making that reasoning explicit makes life easier for everyone, though. Xoloz 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (keep deleted) as per Raul. Template is supported neither by policy nor by WP:GA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I was going to protest because I mistakenly thought this was {{GA}}. Yes, this template goes against policy. Good articles already get a note on their talk pages. They don't need a pretty icon on the top right corner like featured articles do because they're not quite at featured article status yet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I've reviewed the text of the debate and I see charges of meatpuppetry together with some evidence of vote packing. While I personally favor vote packing, I permit admins discretion to discount it. John Reid 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, admin weighed the balance of the argument very well. It used the wrong picture in any case. If it ends up recreated, at least use the correct picture, i.e. Image:Autofellatio.jpg. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I missed the TfD, but agree with Raul's decision on this one. Number of "votes" isn't everything. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with Xoloz that Raul could have provided a rationale before doing something controversial, even if it's the right decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Admittedly I'm deferring to Raul's expertise here. But decorating articles with meta-content doesn't seem like a good idea. If not nipped in the bud, I foresee a rich growth of smiley-faces and bronze medallions and annoying little pastel boxes, and all the edit-warring accoutrements thereof... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Xoloz. JoshuaZ 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/Keep deleted per Xoloz --FloNight ^talk 17:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3 April 2006

Elliott Frankl

The article of Elliott Frankl was deleted by User:Thryduulf final vote was 8 to Keep and 8 to delete (although a few of the deletes appear to be sockpuppets and 5 of the 8 deleted votes were posted when the article was a stub and not complete. All the information is accurate and most but not all shows a source. The ONLY person that was attempting to say this information is false is user pm_shef who is the son of Alan Shefman, the candidate that is running against Frankl in the 2006 municipal election. Being from Vaughan myself I am sure pm_shef knows everything was true in the article but will do anything to get his fathers opponents article deleted, he did the same thing with a few other articles--Eyeonvaughan 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy relist--Eyeonvaughan 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Endorse delete Without sources or references it is impossible for outsiders to fact check this article. It look to me to be original research Seabhcán 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment so take out the info. that does not currently have a source and relist with the info. that does have a source, I looked it over and most info had a source.--Eyeonvaughan 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure/kd' All but two of the keep "votes" were clearly disqualifiable within standard closer's discretion. Additionally, the weights of the arguments and notability guidelines clearly support removal. This decision is right on merit, and consistent with process. Xoloz 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, excellent AfD closure, Thryduulff, this was definitely a tough one to close. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Most of the keep votes came from a contingent of Vaughanians (?) There seems to have been an effort lately to generate multiple articles on Vaughan politics, which can be adequately covered in the main Vaughan article provided reliable sources, NPOV, etc. Municipal officeholders rarely notable, candidates not.Thatcher131 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• The process was followed correctly. As has been pointed out repeatedly, unelected municipal candidates do not merit articles just for being candidates, per WP:BIO, and the keep contingent did not present a sufficiently compelling case that Frankl could be deemed notable for other reasons. And WP policy quite explicitly allows votes that appear to be agenda-based (e.g. people who've never edited Wikipedia before suddenly showing up with strong opinions in an AFD discussion, or votes with no rationale offered) to be excluded. AFD is not a raw numbers vote; it's a debate in which the numbers are a factor, but not in and of themselves the defining one. Plus the whole thing is quite clearly part of a determined campaign to skew WP coverage of local politics in Vaughan in favour of a political lobby group's decidedly POV agenda, which is not permitted under WP rules. And that's not even getting into the blatantly false accusations of bias and/or vandalism that the Vaughan Watch contingent continually makes against anybody who dares edit so much as a misplaced comma from their approved versions. Or the fact that they've already attempted to do an end run around this process by recreating the article twice today alone. Or the fact that they've actually resorted to citing Wikipedia mirrors as sources for the disputed assertions (per this edit). Endorse deletion; I've seen no compelling reason not to. Bearcat 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I have no ties to Vaughan (or Canada, for that matter). The simple fact of the matter is that this individual clearly fails WP:BIO. An examination of edit histories of this article and other afd'd articles related to Vaughan reveals obvious sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Having lived there, I do have ties to the "City above Toronto". I still think this artricle should stay deleted. I'd think the same for Toronto candidates, and indeed, any municipal political candidates of similar prominence. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The Vaughan soap opera rolls on. · rodii · 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll go further. I ^{not really} think we should blackhole Vaughan--delete and protect all Vaughan-related pages, including user pages, until after this election, and hope if any of them are motivated to come back, that it's as constructive contributors rather than political warriors. · rodii · 21:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Bearcat. I'm not involved in the whole Vaughan debacle, but I have been keeping an eye on it. This is an election candidate, not a notable person. Despite vocal support from many editors who are very involved with Vaughan politics articles, there is little support for this kind of article. Closing admin could have relisted for a clearer consensus, but the decision was right. Mangojuice 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse relisting AfD I agree with Mangojuice about the lack of consensus. It's a travesty that this article has been removed because of Pm_shef and his pal Bearcat's personal agenda. Sure they'll deny it; but Pm_shef's father Alan Shefman is Frankl's opponent and the incumbent councillor. This is his clever campaign to sabotage his opponents, and I'm disgusted that almost none of you are doing anything about it.

The arbitration committee has ruled that people who are related to the subject in question cannot edit. All of these issues that are occurring are happening because Pm_shef and his partner Bearcat wish to delete portions of articles and indeed entire articles to suit there purposes. These edit wars start in order to revert Pm_shef's whitewashing.

Finally, as has been cited, the article is very accurate. While not every portion of the article is cited by some objective source (can't be the newspaper articles, can't be the individual's website, according to Pm_shef and Bearcat) the article itself has 6 or 7 citations, much more than other articles. It meets wikipedia's standard. All of this talk of "no evidence" has been brought up by Pm_shef; he is not an objective source for research.

Again, this article should be relisted on the AfD, and I'm hoping there is a consensus for that. VaughanWatch 11:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So again, let's relist the AfD and have a more reasoned debate.

• • I have no personal agenda in the matter except to ensure that Wikipedia's rules and standards are followed, and I have no personal relationship with pm_shef whatsoever. You are to retract both of those false claims immediately. It has nothing to do with wanting to sabotage anybody — exactly how many times am I going to have to tell you that I have no connection whatsoever to anybody remotely connected to Vaughan politics before you realize that I have no connection whatsoever to anybody remotely connected to Vaughan politics? And for the record, I did not overrule any verifiable sources in the article — there weren't any verifiable sources to overrule. You guys didn't even attempt to cite any sources until somebody hit on the clever but invalid ploy of citing Wikipedia mirrors as sources. You didn't cite any newspaper articles. You didn't cite his campaign website — I had to find his campaign site by myself on a Google search. And guess what — it doesn't even make some of the disputed claims. Bearcat 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as Xoloz said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. It's is not worth revisiting an article that doesn't even come close to meeting the verifiability policy. As nearly as I can tell very few revisions even attempt to cite sources, and the few that do use sources such as www.elliottfrankl.com . Dpbsmith (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. nn, due process. `'mikka (t) 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews

Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews was deleted by User:Thryduulf. Final vote was 30 to Keep and 38 to Delete. Thryduulf discounted keep votes by new users using the arbitrary threshold of 10 edits. User also included 10 votes to merge in the delete vote. This is neither fair nor wikipedia policy.Seabhcán 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have recounted the vote and the correct figures are Keep:30, Delete:31, Merge:18 (included in Merge is several Merge and/or delete votes, which amount to the same thing) Seabhcán 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As noted by the closer, most of the "merge" "votes" called only for adding a line or two from the article to the Sheen page, not for preserving its substance, and are properly characterized as calling for removal of the long article. Monicasdude 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• As I explained in my summary, my final count was "38 delete, 18 keep, "18 merge". The 10 merge votes included in the delete and merge totals were: 1 "Delete or Transwiki to Wikiquote", 5 "Delete or merge" and 4 "Delete and merge", which are all votes to delete. I counted the 1 "Merge or keep" as both a keep and a merge. I did not count the 9 straight "merge" votes as delete or keep. Counting only straight delete, keep and merge votes gives 28 delete/17 keep/9 merge. I don't understand where your figure of 30 to keep comes from. Discounting votes made by anons and very new users is perfectly normal. I did not use a 10-edit threshold, that was what user:Mmx1 used in his unnoficial summary, which I did not refer to. Afd is not a vote, and as I also said in the summary "Many of the reasons given to delete focused on this article, whereas most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" - which doesn't explain why this article is notable enough." I stand by my decision. Thryduulf 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What you describe as 'unrelated' articles, I would describe as precedent.Seabhcán 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD (and indeed DRV) is not bound by precedent. Even if it were you would need to explain why the fact that another article was kept means this one should be. One of the cited articles was the one about Michael Jackson dangling his child over a balcony, which is completely different to an actor giving a series of interviews. This is like saying "there is an article about a fibreglass shark embeded in the roof of a house therefore there needs to be an article on the interview in the local paper about with the vicar's wife who beleives she was abducted by aliens". Thryduulf 16:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem with this process is that the accusation of "non-notable" is impossible to defend. Most of the 'delete' votes were based on notability. Google currently has 1.1 million sites mentioning this topic and 99 newspaper articles. The precedent was that the actions of a US actor may have a dedicated article and was not equilivant to equating sharks with vicars or aliens. It seems to me that there is a dedicated cabal of wikipedians who wish to delete any article which is negative to the US. This is infact being commented on outside of wikipedia, here, for example. I have also encountered this on Iraq related articles. It is a sad development. Seabhcán 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually it's more like 536 hits than a million (YMMV as google indexes settle). While googling for that I noticed we don't have the article Charlie Sheen says in an interview he has slept with 5,000 women (google). I mean as long as we are writing articles about individual interviews. Weregerbil 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • On a purely factual note, your calculation for google hits is false. When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based in principle on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected, not the entire number of hits. A rough (very rough) estimation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. Eusebeus 09:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • The number of hits this supposedly "hot" news item gets from a Google News search of "Charlie Sheen" 9/11 is 99. So much for widespread media coverage.Ande B 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thryduulf, especially most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" Thatcher131 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, good analysis by Thryduulf. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd Many closers discount editors with fewer than 100 edits, a few discount those with fewer than 250 edits. Ten edit threshold is generous, consistent with practice. The AfD is perfectly valid; additionally, deletion is what the article merited, in my judgment. Note also that "merge/delete" votes are technically inconsistent, and can be considered void within closer's discretion. Xoloz 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and immediate undelete This series of interviews is historical for the 9/11 truth movement, people went out and gave a demostration of gratitude, Sheen is refered to as a hero, it is the result of almost 5 years of efforts on the part of the 9/11 truth movement to manage to get the issue to mainstream media in a repectable way, and it is seen as a major historical achievement! There was certanly no consensus for deleteing, and i most strongly object to deleting this accomplishment as non-notable, when every single source in the 9/11 truth movement is refering to it in joy! --Striver 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Note that deletion review is not about the content of the article, but about the process of deletion. Thryduulf 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  User:Thryduulf stated that the keep voters did not present arguements for keeping this particular article, and that is blatantly inaccurate, there are plenty of arguements for the notability of this particular arguement, undelete now! --Striver 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Funny thing is, I read "every single source in the 9/11 truth movement is refering to it in joy" as "every single walled gardener is throwing rose petals like there's no tomorrow". But no matter how high they throw them those walls are still too high for anyone else to see, or care. Endorse deletion per above. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  We dont decide how important something is to ourselves, but how notable it is for the people involved in it. I can assure you that i view the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" as a totaly random and non-notable quote, but those in that field find it notable, in the same way do i consider most sport events as totaly non-notable walled gardens. By that same standard, this article is not only notable, but historic, to those millisons of people involved in it, and it is a blatand violations of the policies wikipedia has set to delete it.--Striver 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, per Thryduulf's sound analysis. -Dawson 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. 38-18-18 is absolutely not a consensus. When a consensus cannot be reached, Wikipedia is supposed to err on the side of inclusionism. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and treating it as one allows for the exclusion of information based on the fact that it supports an unpopular POV - which is exactly what I believe happened here. --Hyperbole 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. First, Thryduulf did not disclose his threshold, but it and his numbers are not the same as the unofficial figures I put up so do not conflate them with what I posted. I was erring on the safe side with the figure of 10 edits, having seen an admin close, counting 15 as the threshold: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/911_Eyewitness. From what Xoloz says, even that's fairly generous. --Mmx1 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Did not participate in the debate and have no opinion about the article but I really can't see any clear consensus here. -- JJay 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion The closing admin counted off the hordes of sockpuppets that came in to vote "keep". A very good thing, not bad. I am afraid that deletion review is again being used to try and save bad articles to promote certain POVs.--Jersey Devil 19:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Disregarding likely sockpuppets was appropriate, but after that was done, the resulting AFD didn't even resemble a Wikipedia:Consensus or supermajority. Absent that, the policy is supposed to be to keep the page. Policy wasn't followed here. Sockpuppets aren't the issue. --Hyperbole 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  You don't need a supermajority to close in favor of deletion...do us a favor and don't ever close out any Afd's if that your take on policy.--MONGO 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  You absolutely do need a consesus or at *least* a supermajority to close in favor of deletion. Reread the appropriate policies, e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. When there is no consensus, a page is kept; supermajority can be substituted for consensus only when a discussion is large enough that consensus is not reasonably possible. --Hyperbole 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  I will not argue that the vote constituted a supermajority though it could very well be made; this certainly falls within precedent as far as the percentages fall w.r.t. supermajorities for AFD. However, the outcome is not a vote. It is dependent on a "rough consensus" subject to common sense and the discretion of the closing admin. At the very least you must cede that excluding new and anon users to establish an accurate picture of the opinion of established wiki editors is fair practice, which completely throws off the "vote".--Mmx1 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  The vote was 38-18-18 D-K-M by Thryduulf's count and 31-30-18 D-K-M by Seabhcan's. I do think that whether every single new user's opinion should have been completely discounted is a debatable point, but either way, neither of those counts imply a supermajority. Both are clearly no consensus. As general policy, if a significant number of Wikipedians want an article to stay, it should stay. Or, to quote the policy, "When in doubt, keep." --Hyperbole 01:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  AfD is not a vote. Thryduulf 10:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• The root article on this topic is now 101kB long. Yet every time a spin off article is created it is listed for deletion. This behaviour of certain users is to promote certain POVs. Seabhcán 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep deleted; I don't really see consensus but this needs to go nevertheless. Kotepho 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletetion absolutely. This is just one interview, neither noteworthy or notable. The article does not explain why it is notable. The fact that this interview occurred isn't even notable in the Charlie Sheen article, compared to when he has had to explain to the press and provide interviews about his involvement with Heidi Fleiss, his drug rehab, or anyone of the movies and TV productions he has been involved in. Thryduulf was right on about his interpretation of the vote.--MONGO 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Note that deletion review is not about the content of the article, but about the process of deletion. --Hyperbole 20:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  Policy was followed and process was maintained. I probably should have speedied it when I first saw it.--MONGO 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Make that Strongly Endorse Deletion. It is a perfectly valid practice for the administrators to listen to the comments of contributors without being bound by the mere number of votes. One good argument beats ten bogus ones any day. I was one of those who said Delete or Clean up and Merge. That clearly means that my vote is intended to get rid of this article as a stand-alone article. From this point on I suppose I will simply say delete when given a choice to possibly salvage some small piece of an article. This article was a mess and had nothing notable about it. I'm rather tired of hearing unhappy posers attempting to pyschoanalyze deletion votes as being indicative of some underlying political purpose: analyze yourselves. I'm looking at this for editing purposes only and there is no good reason to keep this as a separate article. Wiki is not a collection of interview transcripts, particularly poor ones. Ande B 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Ande B. And Striver, please understand that in an AfD or a review of an AfD, the most unpersuasive thing you can do is make claims of censorship. JoshuaZ 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Interviews are rarely notable, and there is no compelling evidence that this goes against that trend. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• A whole website is dedicated to this event! How in Gods name can you call this as non-notable when people dedicate websites to it and go out giving demostrations of gratidude? There was nothing even close to consensus for delete, protocol is not followed! --Striver 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Groan, Striver please reread WP:N and WP:V. JoshuaZ 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The interview did happen, the audio and transcript are linked and the three CNN programs on the subject are also available for download and linked. Can you explain why you think this topic is not verifiable? Seabhcán 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Just because a topic is verifiable does not mean that it is notable. Ande B 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you agree the article is verifiable (and perhaps even verified?). Perhaps we can remove the above link to WP:V and its sly suggestion otherwise. Notibility is unprovable and completely in the eye of the POV beholder. Seabhcán 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is the proper interpretation of many of the merge votes, which called for a brief mention. Rhobite 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus was reached, either relist the piece on the AfDs, or per criteria, allow the piece to stay. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Thatcher131 above. -Will Beback 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not even close: to steal a line from the AFD discussionby Samir), "Must be laundry day. It explains the socks. And the soap." --Calton | Talk 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete per Striver. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Excellent analysis by the closer, clearly he had the big picture in mind and decided appropriately. I know my own Merge and Delete recommendation was certainly meant to fall within the Delete camp for this article, and I think the other commenters who recommended Merge in some form or fashion were likewise pretty clear as to their belief that this standalone article should go. --Krich (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Newsworthy is not the same as encyclopedic. There is just no encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in strongest possible terms. I love how the "9/11 truth" organization, which is a laugh all in itself, is trying to assert that everybody agrees with them that this is a major historical event. I don't agree with them, so your argument is fundamentally flawed. As for the deletion, I believe it was spot on, as mentioned by Krich. Kill this thing in the face. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment WP:SOCK says:

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

Does the word "externally" mean outside Wikipedia only or does that paragraph apply to User_talk also? That happened in the original AfD as well as here: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

— Weregerbil 09:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is nonsense to suggest there was any wrong doing in this case. Striver was informing users who had voted to keep that there was a deletion review ongoing. Show me the rule that says that is not allowed. These kind of accusations are simply a distraction and an attempt to intimidate.Seabhcán 09:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, easy please! I am not attempting to "intimidate" anyone, I am asking whether the above-quoted policy applies here. So the answer is "no, it's fine to invite people of known opinions into AfDs and DRVs"? Thanks, I think I learned something new today! Weregerbil 09:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't. Learn something, that is: It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Also: ...internal spamming means cross-posting of messages to a large number of user talk pages, by Wikipedians, in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about a large number of post, nor does this count as advertising. The users contacted had already voted on this issue. They were contacted to inform them that there was a new vote. It can be no coinicidence that Weregerbil 'discovered' these edits right after User:Swatjester falsely accused Striver of Spamming [47]. Is there a smell of socks in the air or do you guys work in the same office? Seabhcán 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is a coincidence (isn't that special)! No, we do not work at the same office (I am currently at home and there is nobody else here; by his signature he appears to be in Iceland and I am in Finland) and as to sockpuppetry you are welcome to request a user check. If I had been sure the invitations were not cool (per Calton above) I would have mentioned it to Striver myself. Why on Earth would anyone create elaborate sockpuppets to say something like that on user talk? Weregerbil 10:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny how Striver "forgot" to inform those who voted delete that there was a DRV pending, isn't it? And that is what was wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 14:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be acceptable to alert everyone who gave input to the deletion discussion that there was a DRV. To only give it to those who agree with you is completely unacceptable and I have trouble seeing it as an action in good faith. JoshuaZ 14:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Simply put: this was not closed improperly. Eusebeus 09:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admin acted correctly. David | Talk 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admins make judgement calls. No compelling case has been made that his judgement was unreasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per wknight94. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alien 5 (rumoured movie)

Alien 5 (rumoured movie) was deleted by User:Tregoweth 23:25, 22 March 2006, for reason 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball'. Deletion contested as 'out of process'. I am the main author and contributor and was not given an opportunity to discuss/debate the deletion. As far as I am aware, the article was not tagged with the deletion notice (I check my watchlist every few days and examine all edits, and I never saw a notice). Wikipeon 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, article violates WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish people who quote it would understand our NOT policy. Crystal-balling is when the writer adds his/her own speculation about a possible future event (i.e. NO crystal ball is just a more precise version of NOR). Reporting the notable speculation of others is perfectly legitimate. To take an extreme case, one wouldn't for example to delete a decent article on the proposed Freedom Tower.
  • Oh, and overturn. Pcb21 Pete 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between an architectural site for which there has been a design competition and significant controversy, and a movie that isn't even listed in IMDB. Thatcher131 17:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I normally turn to upcomingmovies.com for this sort of thing (it's now been bought by Yahoo!). Yes, they're not actually going to make Alien 5, at least not any time soon, hence it's not on IMDb. HOWEVER there has been a lot of notable talk about continuing the series, which is why this is a valid topic. Pcb21 Pete 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Pcb21. It's been a while since I looked at that section of WP:NOT. However, I think you're interpreting the crystal ball guideline a bit too strictly. WP:NOT says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." In that respect, what you say is correct, that we can report "the notable speculation of others...." However, WP:NOT also says: "Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." From what I understand, the fifth Aliens movie has little non-promotional information available yet. Despite that, though, since WP:NOT makes clear that unreleased movies are valid article topics, I'm going to have to change my vote. See below. Powers 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that line in WP:NOT is a classic example of policy page cruft/creep. Why pick on a particular case of a particular case (advertising in unreleased product) to mention in such a general place. The core principles here are Verifiability (which takes care of "crystal balls") and Neutrality (which takes care of advertising). I am glad you saw that and changed your vote. Pcb21 Pete 10:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but with some reservations. From Wikipeon's description, it sounds like it was speedied, but crystal ballism isn't a speedy criterion. I'd like to hear Tregoweth's side. HOWEVER: even if it was deleted out-of-process, there's absolutely no reason to restore the article and hold an AfD; per WP:BALLS, this article has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD, for precisely the reason given by Tregoweth. Powers 16:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do you mean per WP:SNOW? WP:BALLS redirects to Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. WP:SNOW. Stupid shortcuts.  ;) It doesn't help that sometimes Complete Bollocks can be called a "snow job". =) Powers 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Overturn and AfD. I've changed my vote per above, after rereading the WP:NOT section on Crystal Balls. Also WP:SNOW apparently doesn't apply, per Xoloz. Apologies. Powers 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)*Endorse deletion with reservations per LtPowers.Thatcher131 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:NOT is not a valid WP:CSD reason. It may have been valid under A1 or A3 or some other speedy criteria, but I can't tell without seeing the article, so will wait for admin to comment on that. In any case, speedy deletes should list a valid CSD reason in the deletion log, to avoid confusion. MartinRe 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD, per MartinRe, though to be honest, I think the AfD will result in WP:SNOW. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD. Quite obviously an improper speedy, and the article, while bad, is too substantial for me to consider it for the snow shovel. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list on AfD WP:NOT is NOT a Wikipedia CSD. Contested speedy, and classic AfD topic. Rumoured movies frequently survive valid AfDs. Xoloz 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD. Let it get its week in the sun before it's deleted.  RasputinAXP  c 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list not a speedy. --Rob 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This hasn't a hope in hell at AfD. Really. Why waste everybody's time? Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Because we're not AfD, and if we make judgements on content rather than process the norm, rather than something we do purely in extreme cases to save time, we'll turn into it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• And slightly perversely, a key reason that it wouldn't survive AfD is that it has been through here. Too many people have said delete now, and people psychologically find it difficult to change their mind/accept they are wrong, so will continue to support deletion come what may. If this debate hadn't occured, I know I could write an article on the purported Alien 5 that would either not getted AFDed or survive AFD, but now that it has, it probably isn't worth me trying :). Should I anyway? Pcb21 Pete 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If anything an overturn / list decision might have the opposite effect. But any AfD debate which looked at the content of the article as deleted this time is only going to have one outcome. I like process, I think process is important when large numbers of people need to work together and I would probably not have speedied it myself, but I really can't see any point undoing that just so we can trade "due process" for a week of having a crap article with a delete tag. Where's the benefit in that? Just zis Guy you know? 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse outcome but not process WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria, so {{prod}} would have been apropriate rather than a speedy. There is absolutely no point in recreating this for it to spend a week with either a {{prod}} or {{afd}} tag on it before deleting it again. Keep deleted. Thryduulf 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process I still believe it should have been granted a proper review period, but I've notified User:Tregoweth that I will no longer contest. Can somebody retrieve the contents of the page so I can add to my own site? (send by email or simply add to my user page where I will retrieve it) I put in a lot of work assembling all the referenced quotes and would like that effort not to be for nothing. Thanks. 202.0.15.138 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not signed in for that comment. Wikipeon 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW. (And I'm a huge fan.) John Reid 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 09:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article pronto. Serious violation of CSD- we have Prod, we have AfD, we have article talk pages, we have user talk pages- learn how to use them. It is shocking that admins feel entitled to trample established systems, in the process contravening AGF, as they seek to frog march articles off the site. The ends do not justify the means. -- JJay 14:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AFD. There are some small pieces of sources in the article which might give it a chance of survival on AFD. THe proper forum to evaluate whether this is good enough or just pure speculation is a deletion, and not an undeletion discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process, with strong reservations I see original author has withrawn the review and requseted the article be userfied, which I hope it will, as it could be useful should the film plans get more concrete in future. However, I am concerned with the number of SNOW comments. Yes, some incorrectly speedied articles would be snowballed in an afd, but we should be very careful not to allow WP:SNOW become a de facto WP:CSD. For the sake of a few days, I would much prefer a snowballed afd than an incorrect speedy. Yes, mistakes happen, and we shouldn't blindly relist all incorrect speedys, but we should be aware of the impression that the overuse of SNOW as endorsing incorrect speedys gives to people. Saying "this article would so obviously fail, that discussion isn't even necessary" should be used very sparingly. Regards, MartinRe 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

2 April 2006

Bonez

This article and also an article relating to Stan (graffiti artist) were both deleted on the grounds they were not notable. I believe this was done due to the fact that the users who did vote to delete these articles neither derive from melbourne or have little knowledge of the grafitti scene in general. 'Bonez' and 'Stan' are (or were) arguably two of the most prominent grafitti writers in Melbourne. Although a lot of their most visible work lacks creative value, one marvels at the extremes lengths these artists/vandals go to publicise their pseudonyms. These tags are unique in that they are ominously visible and are spread throughout almost every suburb in melbourne, going far beyond (as Sandstein puts it) 'petty vandalism'.

In closing, the fact that one cannot locate these artists on google should not be seen as measure of notoriety, as grafitti artists prefer to remain anonymous as their actions are illegal and making a 'hello police, i am a grafitti artist, this is where I live, my interests include..' type of website would certainly not be in their interest. This being so, one truly has to see these works to understand their noteriety. I was just about to provide photographic examples on their pages only to find them deleted? Why is this so? Just because it's illigal, does not mean it is not notable; Just because you can't find it on google also does not mean it is not notable. Do a little more research beyond wiki and google before you go around deleting artlicles. PeterPartyOn 13:50, 3 April 2006 (AEST)

• I have to say--and I mean no disrespect here, I swear--that "arguably two of the most prominent grafitti writers in Melbourne" seems like a roundabout way of saying "non-notable." It's hard to know what to say about the deletion based on the above description, though. Was it deleted out of process in some way? · rodii · 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonez was unanimous that these people are not notable. Is there any evidence that was not available at the time of the AfD? Until that time, endorse closure, keep deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• No grounds here at all to overturn this. Keep Deleted Eusebeus 10:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted absent credible evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I see no claims that they were so notorious as to have newspaper articles about them or anything similar. No new evidence has been brought to bear. JoshuaZ 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the cite of a newspaper made it clear that the newspaper itself couldn't figure out which of the two taggers was which. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rodii. No substantial reason given in nomination to consider reversal. Xoloz 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rodii. Very few taggers meet WP guidelines for notability, and this isn't one of them. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

50 Bands To See Before You Die

I don't know understand why this was deleted: it was clearly a subjective list published by a magazine and so wasn't factual as such, but no more so than Rolling Stone's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time: don't see why Q's lists should be less worthy of inclusion than RSs. Maybe it should have been renamed to Q magazine's list of 50 bands to see before you die, but not deleted. Jimbow25

• Perhaps because Q magazine is not an authority on music matters. Also the comment at the end of the article was completely unencyclopaedic. Just zis Guy you know? 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Heck, I live in the US, and generally hate modern music, but I'm inclined to consider Q's opinions musically notable, based on the loyalty I've seen among fans. What makes you so skeptical, JzG? Xoloz 22:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Partly, I guess, that every single magazine in the known usniverse publishes lists like these as seasonal spacefillers; very few are genuinely independently notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy without prejudice against the creation of an actual article. This was just a list of wikilinks, which I assume happened to correspond with some list some magazine wrote, and thus meets the speedy criterion A3 "Any article whose contents consist only of links elsewhere". The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, by contrast, is an actual article. With writing. And stuff. I'm not convinced that lists by magazines are inherently encyclopaedic (they write them all the time when they have no other ideas), but that's a matter for AfD, if anyone. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, subjective lists are copyright violations. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If this is unsourced, it is original research. If it is sourced to a magazine (something which is not apparent from the actual deleted versions), then Zoe is correct that it is a clear copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clear copyvios don't have to go through AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for copyvio reasons. Xoloz 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophilia

This article was speedied twice by the same admin during the first two days of a vigorous (but civil) AfD debate and is currently protected by same. At the time of the last speedy there were 21 votes, of which about one third were keeps, and the keeps were not from obvious sockpuppets or madmen. This diversity is significant enough that it should be clear to anybody that a speedy delete (which is supposed to be used in obviously nontrontroversial cases only) is a wrong, wrong thing to do, whether as an attempt to close the AfD or in spite of it.

I would be quite happy to see this article disappear eventually -- nothing good can come from it IMO -- but that does not mean that proces can just be bypassed in this way. The article should be undeleted for the time being and the AfD allowed to run its course. Henning Makholm 09:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• So, you want to undelete an article and put it back on the encyclopedia, when you think it will do wikipedia no good and shouldn't be on the encyclopedia, and a previous afd consensus thought shouldn't be on the encyclopedia, all because you were having a nice little debate, which, theoretically, might have ended in 'no-consensus'? That really is process wonking. --Doc ^ask? 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, appropriate speedy as recreated content. Not something we want sticking around in any case. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, the AFD was developing an interesting range of opinions, and the discussion should be left to run its course. Yes, it seems the original speedy may have been justified following recreation, but I think once the discussion had started to develop it should have been left to run. At the least the admin that speedied it a second time should have posted an explanation. Kcordina ^Talk 09:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment :: I~Phobia has just survived AfD; odd, perhaps, then that I~philia is speedied. NPOV anyone ? -- Simon Cursitor 09:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Islamophobia is a commonly used word. Islamophilia isn't. For each google hit on Islamophilia there are 1400 on Islamophobia. They aren't even in the same ballpark. Shadowoftime 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Kcordina's above comments. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Kcordina. Also, the last round of deletions, according to the log, was nine and a half months ago. The contributor has WP:CHILLed, and after this long period of time, tried again. In the case of new words, a lot may change in nine months, which is why I'd rather see it go through a full AfD cycle and get deleted that way. -- Saberwyn 10:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You know what scares me? Doc glasgow's comment below, saying that no one "did [him] the courtesy" of informing him of the AfD debate. First, that means that he completely missed the nice, big AfD template on the top of the page. I know it was there because I added it to the most recent deleted version, and saw it on the deleted verson before. I'm going to assume bad faith here, and make the assumption that Doc did not even look at the articlepage before he performed the speedy delete. The second thing that scares me about this statement, is that Doc appears to be claiming that there are things on Wikipedia that require his personal permission before they can happen. -- Saberwyn 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy Prior to this debate the article had been deleted five times (by five different admins). A better example of G4 (which was the explaination given both times in the deletion log) would be hard to find. MartinRe 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as a valid speedy of recreated content. While the content may not be identical to the one that was deleted by consensus, I'm not seeing why this is a valid article now when it wasn't last July. While this has been used by newspapers, we're an encyclopaedia and we're not required to cover every single meaningless neologism hacks come out with. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• After I have looked at the two versions, I will say relist. The first deletion, by Kelly Martin back in June, was entirely the correct decision in a sockfest of an AFD debate. The version here has several examples of the term being used by famous authors, journalists and politicians, something which was not in the old version. Therefore, I don't think that this counts as a "substantially identical" version. Also, over a few months, a term which was premature for an article may very well have evolved into a term deserving of one and I think further discussion on this is warranted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Sam Blanning and MartinRe. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted with earth salted. Deleted by valid AfD, deleted again as valid G4 several times, I would also have closed the second AfD as delete, on the weight of arguments presented. Content was not only substantially similar, but was created by the same editor, which looks a lot like gaming the system. WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course the content of an article about the same subject is similar. It has, though, been rewritten from scratch entirely, as has been observed by others. I already prove that its deletion was a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, as such providing textbook examples of politically correct bigotry. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Strangely, bigotry appears to be an excellent description of how the article is viewed by those who have read it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• I am about to make a test. I do not know yet how the test will turn out. I am about to perform a search on "Islamophilia" the full text of the New York TImes from 2000 through yesterday. If this is a real word in itself singificant use, and not just a columnist's or blogger's coinage (or a repeatedly-reinvented nonce word by someone seeking a rhetorical opposite for "Islamophobia,"), then someone, somewhere should have mentioned it in the Times by now. Let's see. My vote will be based on the outcome. Here goes. "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Odd, my own search of NyTimes.com came up with this from September 12, 2004. Netscott 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse, keep deleted. Valid AfD. The question is whether the new article proves that some significant sea-change has occurred since the AfD and the word has exploded into widespread use. The Times search convinces me that it has not.. This is not a real word in significant contemporary use, it is just an occasional reinvention or re-coinage and has no meaning beyond the individual meanings of "islam" and "-philia." I could be searching for a word to explain the recurrence of the thirteenfold motif on the dollar bill and say "triskaidekaphilia" and you'd know what I meant, but that does not mean triskaidekaphilia is a real word that needs an article. You can take an article about any word ending in -phobia and change the ending to -philia and likely find scattered examples of occasional use, but that doesn't mean we need corresponding -philia articles for every -phobia article, any more than we need an article on Pedophobia. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. What Dpbsmith said. Even the most "unabridged" dictionaries don't include entries for every word that is possible by mixing and matching suffixes like "-phobia" and "-philia", and an encyclopedia certainly shouldn't. - Nunh-huh 12:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: clear violation of Wikipedia policy. The VfD was not concluded in a proper manner. The deletor cannot motivate his deletion by objective reasons. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In a way that your repeated re-creation of a deleted article is not violation of policy? Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not, and I can. But 1. no-one did me the courtacy of informing me of this debate. 2. I speedied this twice per CSD G4, 'recreation of previously deleted content 3.'. There was a clear consensus 4. to delete the first time, and you don't get to game the system by constantly recreating and sending to afd until you can magic 31% to create a no-consensus. If there was reason to overturn the first afd, you bring it here and give your reasons. Keep deleted, obviously.--Doc ^ask? 12:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ad 1. The page was tagged with a huge VfD boiler template just minutes after creation which was hard to miss. This renders this point less plausible, bordering the ludicrous.
      ad 2. I rewrote thepage from scratch as I had not a backup copy, assuming some basic feeling of fair play aty the side of Wikipedia admins. It can be easily verified that the page is quite different from the version nine months ago.
      ad 3. Recreating the page more than nine months after the last VfD in which there was just a slim majority of 55% to delete it, hardly qualifies as gaming the system. Refer to the applicable Wikipedia VfD policy.
      ad 4. There was not a clear consensus, not nine months ago and not now. Please check the VfD attempts.
      --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Since this was not an exact recreation of content the G4 does not seem motivated. Furthermore, an excessive reliance on process over common sense is not constructive. The previous debate was held almost a year ago and was marred by puppets. This debate had significant participation and was properly conducted. In my opinion, using G4 while an AfD is in progress does more damage than any possible good. -- JJay 13:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. While this is as far as I can tell a neologism, it is important to follow process when dealing with controversial issues. JoshuaZ 13:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - keep deleted - per Doc glascow, MartinRe and Sam Blanning. I certainly trust Doc's knowledge of process and his judgment. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The article spliced together a number of separate neologisms for this term but it is not in general use, is pejorative, and I don't think a reasonable encyclopaedia article can be made out of it. David | Talk 14:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse G4 speedy/keep deleted per Dbpsmith. His test [1] convinces me of neologistic status as well. A valid AfD [2] deserves respect until substantial cause is given to reconsider. Xoloz 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [1] Can you elaborate on this test? [2]I have proven that the previous AfD and this AfD were not valid at all. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • 1.) See Dpbsmith's comments for his test and 2.) The previous AfD looks valid to me, and (reading your comments) I see no "proof" otherwise. First AfD was closed 5k/29d (discounting sockpuppets, which closer annotated), which is much more than 55%. Xoloz 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. His remarks have been scanned. The New York Times is known for its politically correct bias thus hardly can be deemed a trustworthy source for evaluating the concurrency of politically incorrect parlance. Other publications such as the Times and Washington Times did use the word. This so-called 'research', thus, is Americocentric and disregards British and other non-American media and discourse.
        2. It was not valid for the following reasons. a) Less than 2/3 majority b) Arbitrary disregard of anonymous votes (violation of innocent until proven) c) Disturbance of voting process by premature deletion of the page.
        Additional arguments for maintaining the term are:
        is notable
        is used in print
        is used in several reputable academic publications
        yields about 1000 Google hits
        --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I think in section b of this last comment, the source of the misunderstanding becomes clear. Wikipedia has had such bad experiences with users creating sockpuppet accounts in an attempt to bias our decision-making process that we have long-established traditions in which all suspiciously new or anonymous accounts may be disregarded at the discretion of the closing administrator. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. We are not holding a court nor are we making decisions about the life or liberty of the users. Furthermore, it's essentially impossible to prove sockpuppetry, making that an impossible standard for our purposes. An better analogy is that we are establishing (well ahead of time) some reasonable requirements for sufferage. Note that the concept of sufferage also applies only weakly because AFD decision-making process is a discussion, not a vote.
          Your other points about notability and use in print are possible arguments for undeletion but so far you have not provided any sources for those claims and even if true, they still seem to qualify this term as a neologism which is deletable under the Wikipedia is not a dictionary rule. Perhaps this content would be more appropriate over in Wiktionary? Rossami (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/Keep deleted and salted. This article has been recreated and redeleted so many times, it's almost become a cliché for {{deletedpage}}. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • With reason. All of its deletes were arbitrary and clear violations of applicable Wikipedia guidelines, as I explained above. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per User:JzG's comments above. --Hetar 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above; perfectly within process, and the right thing to do given previous AfD discussin. Eusebeus 10:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and transwikify to Striverpedia. Thatcher131 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per User:Dpbsmith's [1] test logic. [48]. I've not voted in any of the previous AfD's for Islamophilia (I'm a bit indifferent to the word myself) but speedy deletion seems to have been an improper course of action. Netscott 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Keep deleted and salted. I think it's been through plenty of deletion processes. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure - Still no reason as to why it should be re-re-created has been made. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - per above. Raphael1 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1 April 2006

List of TRACS members

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members

I'm curious why the vote was no consensus? Since the comments about proven pupperty was moved to the talk, the voting at first glance is imbalanced. On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TRACS members I counted 4 keep votes (includes Itake) verses 15 delete votes. The creator the page in question is a suspcted sock puppet of banned user User:Jason Gastrich who has a long history of puppets in AfD. I mean these are obvious puppets[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]While Hayson[58] admitted he voted in the Afd because he was told to [59] Thus, those 10 votes discounted bring my tally to 4 keep votes verses 15 delete votes.

And if you are not aware view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination) for past massive sock puppeting by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich.

Perhaps it can be given a closer look and see the comments by other users that were moved to the talk page. Arbusto 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak endorse closure. I think Mailer might have been a bit liberal in counting some votes from new accounts, but there are some things about the delete argument which makes me wary of voting to overturn it. One argument presented and often cited among most of those who argued for deletion is that this would do better as a category. I cannot see that this is the case for this list, because out of the 40 entries, only 12 of them have articles, and a category cannot handle such redlinks. I also think the arguments presented for inclusion by JJay are fairly good ones. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The argument was that if this list stays then other lists of schools by a certain accreditor will be created (the other ones had the beginings of some removed by myself). Other accreditors accredit 13,000 and 18,000 schools a piece. Also these lists are incomplete and out of date because they will not be updated everytime the accreditor updates its list. Arbusto 20:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Right after I made the above post, a new user with his fifth ever edit[60]. Arbusto 21:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Even more strange I got attacked with a new user's first post on this issue[61]. Arbusto 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. (I did vote delete, mind). I counted eleven valid Delete arguments and four Keep from known editors (of whom two appeared to be voting on the basis of faith not content and one, rather worryingly, appeared to argue keep mainly because of the identity of the nominator). The article is a list of institutions accredited by a single, controversial accreditation body; a category works much better for this since it's self-maintaining. If we followed this precedent by having an article on every accreditation body we would have a series of lists with up to the tens of thousands of entries. We already have an article on TRACS, from which this list was removed as unnecessary (the authoritative list and the category are both linked from the TRACS). This list adds precisely nothing to the encyclopaedia except additional maintenance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per JzG, who states the case elegantly. Eusebeus 12:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Normally, I wouldn't state an opinion because I participated in the original debate. However, since JZg is here, I will say that I think it was properly closed because I do not see a consensus in the debate. I would also remind JZg that AfD is a discussion and that this page is about process not content. There is no reason to restate his arguments for deleting the page. -- JJay 13:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I know AfD is a debate. That was the point. Most of the "keeps" made no actual argument, and appeared to be the result of solicitations to vote from Wiki4Christ (run by banned user:Jason Gastrich as if we need reminding). The balance of input in the debate which referred to substantive arguments rather than ad-hominem or Gastroturfing seems to me to be strongly in favour of deletion. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Gee I hope you're not calling me a Gastrich sock puppet now. Other than that, given your pronounced role on one side of this debate, I hardly think you have the objective distance necessary to voice an opinion on the quality of the arguments on the keep side. I don't either. Which is why when I say that I made stupendously substantive arguments for keeping this list and that the arguments on the delete side were outrageously lamentable, everyone knows that I'm just spewing my POV all over this page like a frat boy on spring break in Tijuana. -- JJay 18:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per JzG. More Gastrichcruft. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• I would agree with Sjakkalle on the question of closer's discretion, but Mailer seems to have vacated his decision now. In light of that, considering the circumstances de novo, I would recommend closure as Delete based on both "vote count" and argument strength. Xoloz 17:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, maybe I am missing something here, but the closing admin said he would take another look at it. Given that, why are we discussing this here? Furthermore, since the result was no consensus I'm not sure it makes sense to discuss this here at all. I was under the impression that Deletion Review was for review of deleted articles, not review of results that went to keep or no consensus. JoshuaZ 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete since even the closing admin is endorsing deletion at this point. However, I'm still worried about the use of this page as a mechanism to delete articles. JoshuaZ 12:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, without prejudice to the closing admin's investigation of course. --kingboyk 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wait for sockpuppet check. Mailer Diablo has placed his AfD closure on hold while some of the voters go through a sockpuppet check. I suggest we wait until the check is complete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Unlikely to be actual socks, but there was very offsite solicitation to vote (aka Gastroturfing). Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - some sockpuppets have been confirmed - see [62]. I'll leave the AfD as it is now since the AfD is listed here. Recommend relist if there are legitimate concerns by established Wikipedians, otherwise delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per JzG. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete only reason it was kept was because disclosure of sockpuppets were moved to the talk page and closing admin did not notice.--Jersey Devil 12:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• CLOSURE learn to understand when you've lost a fight people. Itake 13:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, That attitude makes so much sense when the closing admin is advocating deletion. JoshuaZ 13:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Especially since several "keep" voters are now proven to be sockpuppets of a banned user. Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete, per JzG. -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. No consensus, even with possible socks. --Steve Jackson1 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Proven Gastrich sock, per CheckUser evidence.
  • Comment the above user's first edit was on April 3, 2006 [63]--Jersey Devil 19:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Closure per Itake. --207.200.116.203 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no reason to keep the list as demonstrated with arguments. Arbusto 01:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Procedural comment. Please do not modify the comments of others by striking through them. Not even when you think that you have confirmed evidence of sockpuppetry. A comment on your findings is sufficient and we've learned that it is perceived as less antagonistic by new users. Strikethroughs are considered very aggressive and tend to just earn us undeserved accusations of "censorship". Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The creator was Template:VandalNo Jobs which was proven to be a sock puppet of a banned user. This should be speedy deleted under section 5. Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for that criteria. Arbusto 05:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the creator was sock of 1-year blocked user. So it is not G5. An intentional tecnicality or oversight? I posted a question in talk of WP:CSD. Please discuss. `'mikka (t) 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. `'mikka (t) 20:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

This should not have been deleted, specialy not after having been turned to a redirect. I have a hard time to assume good faith, specialy since the admin that choose to delete the redirect has a history of conflict with me. --Striver 17:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see any claim of notability in the original article, so endorse deletion without prejudice against recreating it with an explanation of why he's notable. "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub "undeleted"." --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)^(talk) 17:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I have nothing against the redirect, so maybe "endorse redirection or deletion" would be more appropriate. --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)^(talk) 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He is a prominent part of S9/11T, and that at least warants a redirect. Bad faith deletion of the redirect, in my view. --Striver 18:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate redirect, undecided on delete validity If the article (inc history) only contained a redirect, I don't see any reason for deletion under WP:RFD, except possibly the "Adam B. Smith" example. However, if the article history contained copyvios, as the original one did, it could be justifibly deleted under WP:CPAA, but I can't see the deleted article to comment on that. MartinRe 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy of original, recreate redirect. This fellow is quite real and notable [64], so an article with content is clearly warranted (or at least not speediable.) The original appears to have been junk, so deletion was appropriate; however, I encourage recreation. Until then, I will be bold and recreate the redirect, as I see no justification for its deletion at all. Xoloz 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm. Subject is notable for his academic position, but not for his membership of 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth'. Article appears to have been either a copyvio or a substub. I would therefore take no action at the moment to overturn the deletion but if someone wants to have a go at writing a new article about his work at Minnesota University, with a side mention of his membership of 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth', then just go ahead without bothering DRV. David | Talk 20:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy of original, recreate redirect. per Xoloz --FloNight ^talk 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo, no prejudice against creating an article on this subject at a later date, but tis was a substub of not evident merit and contained no claim to notability outside of the current redirect target. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Doorknob (game)

This is not an April fools joke, though it has gotten caught up in that. This article was created about a month ago, about a real game. (Google's cache has the old article.) Someone decided to expand it in a rather unencyclopedic fashion earlier today, and marked it as an April Fools page. I marked it for {{cleanup-tone}} and removed it from the April fools category. Then it was improperly deleted:

20:41, 31 March 2006 Alkivar deleted "Doorknob (game)" (WP:NOT Uncyclopedia)

--SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, here's a source from a published book (calling the game safety, but with everything else the same). Here's another (calling it doorknob). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not an unreasonable speedy call, but weak undelete and afd, it isn't patent nonsense and SPUI's refs check out. --Doc ^ask? 16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care - undelete and AfD if we must, but I note that the first of SPUI's links does not appear to mention the game and the second is a book published by a vanity press, iUniverse, so there appears to be a shortage of reliable sources for this particular piece of potty humour, and SPUI's reputation is not exactly spotless. Perhaps it should just be added to an article on potty humour or fart gags and left at that. Just zis Guy you know? 16:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The first one clearly mentions it - it just calls it safety rather than doorknob. I knew this game well about 8-10 years ago as a Boy Scout. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither the word safety nor the word doorknob appear in the linked page. The book is published by a company with only 35 books on Amazon and whose website is currently 404. The other book is a vanity publication. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • They appear in the image - maybe you have something disabled that Google Books needs? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Even if that were the case, it would not adress the fact that neither of these books appears to be form a reputable publisher. Just zis Guy you know? 09:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy, but very weak undelete and afd No refs were included in the cached version, which combined with the content and current day, would justify a speedy to me. The additions of the refs change that somewhat (some google results, mostly on personal web sites/blogs though), but I'm only voting very weak undelete as I think the article would be unlikely to surive an afd, but it's probably due the slim chance anyway. MartinRe 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It had been made about a month ago, not for April 1. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 17:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, worth examining on afd. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I can vouch that this game exists widely, and the description of it is not a mere prank. It's not so much a "game" that people sit down and play, but rather extremely similar to the tradition of Calling shotgun to get the passenger seat in a car -- among certain groups of friends, the "game" is considered to always be "in progress." Boy, I never dreamed I'd find myself coming to its defense.--Plaidfury 18:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I remember safety (or was it safeties) being called when I was a kid, but I never thought of it as a game; it was a background buzz in what passed for conversation among teenage boys. (Oh, and I am quite sure that doorknobs were not part of it.) The issue, though, is not whether the phenomena exists, but whether we can find reliable, published sources for it. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list at AfD I agree this was not a bad speedy call, but there is clearly some real "social phenomenon" to investigate. I personally doubt its notability, but children's games, even foul ones, can be encyclopedic, so a WP:SNOW call seems unreasonable. Xoloz 18:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete/list at AfD per Xoloz --FloNight ^talk 21:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I don't see how you can justify this speedy. Even given the day don't you look at a page history before deleting something? If it had been speedied G1 or something I could agree, but it seems it was speedied on the april fools version. Kotepho 05:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • May I recommend reference of "The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren", by Opie and Opie, which has extensive material on the English version of the "doorknob" or "knocker" game. -- Simon Cursitor, London, England 10:44, 2 April 2006
• Undelete. April Fools vandalism/joke edits (delete per your opinion) should result in a revert, not a speedy delete. Cynical 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Real game, I've played it before. ::poot:: ....saftey... :) -Oscar Arias 05:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist, per the sources provided by SPUI. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

31 March 2006

Betty chan

betty chan meets "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" because Yew Chung is extremely popular in HK and yew chung became the first school to be granted land from the government to operate a private school... and it's all because of her leadership, well of course her husband as well, he is a politician...a few years ago when yew chung got the land, majour newspapers strongly critized yew chung because her husband was the secretary of the former cheif excetive tung chee wa....... yew chung was on the news for months.. in hk i mean..So i think she deserve to have a bio on wikipedia..Snob 01:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This page was first created March 30th; it contained 3 lines stating, among other things, that the subject is the wife of a famed Hong Kong politician and is worth over "120 million". It was speedily deleted several times, and recreated on each successive deletion by the nominator. The later versions contained several paragraphs of self-referential justifications, "Reasons to let this bio to stay". I'm temporarily restoring the last version in the history logs, so that non-sysop users can have a look should they wish to consider it and comment. —Encephalon 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• A Google search appears to verify the existence of this person, and the significant assertion of her marriage. She'll probably belong as a mention in her husband's article, once he gets one. For now, Keep deleted because the article is in very poor shape, pending more sources or a rewrite. Xoloz 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Her husband deserves an article, I see no readon why she does. Keep deleted JoshuaZ 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Generally speaking, familial association with a notable person isn't really a claim to notability in itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• KD Is there a speedy Keep Deleted option, cause here's its poster child. Eusebeus 10:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but unprotect the talk page. Stifle 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The page is a wreck, and she really only seems notable for her connection to her husband. -Colin Kimbrell 14:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/keep deleted and earth salted. This article was recreated several times, definitely requires {{deletedpage}} protection. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A large response by User:Snob was posted here, I moved it to Talk:Betty chan#Moved from WP:DRV to keep the DRV page size manageable.
• Endorse deletion. I still can't see what she's supposed to be notable for. Just zis Guy you know? 08:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable for being the director of Yew Chung, Yew chung is extremely popular in Hong Kong, and it became the first school to be granted land from the HK government to operate a private school, and it will be in KOWLOON TONG<-- this makes a huge difference!, you want it to be deleted maybe because you know nothing about Hong Kong!Snob 19:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And this can be a link for "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yew_Chung_International_School_of_Hong_Kong" since it's there already Snob

I belive that many people who goes to the wikipedia yew chung page will click on "betty chan" or will want to have this link, especialy after the new campus is built, it will cause a lot of interest to the people in hong kong...Snob 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not have an article on the headmaster of Eton College. My old school was founded over a thousand years ago, we do not have an article for the headmaster of that either. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

then you can try to make one! why can't people like me help to expand wikipedia???... it seems to me that no newer articles are allowed to be created and we can only edit older articles..... and betty chan is not dead.....Snob 22:54, 1 April 2006

(UTC)

this situation is different, Yew Chung is in Hong Kong and all of the primary section is located near the kowloon tong mtr/mcr station.... everbody who goes to kowloon tong will see yew chung, and betty chan is Very Rich, her husband is a famous politician in hk and was the secretary of the former hk cheif excutive , tung chee wa, and yew chung got the last plot of land next to the new kowloon tong kcr station because of kwok wah's relationship with the hk government, a few years ago, it had been on the news because of this...Snob 23:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC), betty is the director of yew chung, this is why i want to write an article about her and not her husband, people will want to know about her... although some of this can be posted on the yew chung article on wiki, but i think a betty chan should be created to cover more about her Snob 23:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, non-notable. Snob, so far almost all your contributions to Wikipedia have been about this article. You are simply too close to this person, as an alumus of the school and as someone who knows her personally, to be an impartial editor. Please see WP:VAIN and examine your motives. If she is truly notable, just wait and someone else will create an article. It doesn't have to be you. I'll bet you can find many other ways to contribute. · rodii · 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have contributed on the " nina Kung" page.. simply because i like to know and write about rich peopleSnob 02:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I used another username " l7iu" to edit "nina kung" .... and I am Snob...L7iu 02:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) -snob and "Rodii" PLease go to the "betty chan" talk page and Click on all of the Links .... you said i am close to her? and know her personality!... all of the information is from websites and from my teachers... She is rich... and she owns schools in china.. You think she will Ever go to our school and talk to us? I only saw her while attending the kowloon tong campus ground breaking ceremony..... please READ before you commentL7iu 02:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Thank You

People PLEASE use your common sense!, you guys never read wht I wrote or click on the links i provided... Some people above even thought I am Very Close to Betty Chan.... Let me tell you guys, a very rich director of a Prestigious international school WON"T usually handle her schools.... She has a lot of other businesses.. And did you GO to the www.ycef.com website... There ARE ASSISTANT DIRECTORS that she hired!!!... and If i am her i will not go to my school because i am very rich and it will be much better for me to stay at home in my sai kung mansion and watch TV!L7iu

Check this link and read.. a speech from her for the ground breaking ceremony[65] you will then know that madamme chor hang is her mother.Snob 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• And that is important because why? · rodii · 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The page has been recreated on its talk page, so that may be need to be dealt with pending the results of this discussion. --InShaneee 18:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Deathphoenix, salt heavily. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

28 March 2006

Jerry Taylor

Speedy deleted as an attack page. In reality, it had a good three paragraphs of NPOV information under the heading "Biography". There was a bunch of nonsense under the heading "Controversy" that could have been deemed an attack, but could just as easily been cleaned up or removed. Ashibaka tock 02:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy delete and let the AfD listing run its course if relisted (I closed it, because the article had been speedied). I added the {{deleted}} to prevent people from creating messages in the article space asking where the article went, which is not really appropriate. --W.marsh 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ashibaka is correct. The Biography section was completely objective.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.171.208 (talk • contribs)
• Keep deleted, attack pages are clearly speedy delete-able, and the Biography section was in no way objective. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a reason to remove the Bio section or to clean it up, not to remove the entire article. A6 can only be (properly) used when the only purpose purpose of the entire article is to disparage its subject. That doesn't seem to be the case here. --W.marsh 03:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The article was created because Slashdot had a story/thread/whatever making fun of Mr Taylor. It's arguable (though I wouldn't want to try it myself) that it was intended as an attack page, and is therefore speediable. Frankly, I wouldn't have speedied it ... but I would like to see it gone. It looks like an article that needs to die, and I for one am not a fan of going through an unnecessary process just for the sake of it ... see also WP:SNOW ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • But WP:SNOW isn't policy, or a guideline, or anything. A6 didn't happen properly, from the looks of things, so it should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't say WP:SNOW was policy, or a guideline. See also: "going through an unnecessary process just for the sake of it". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, it's not much of anything was my point. I certainly don't think the process would be unnecessary, I think notability is fairly clear. If anything, the protected page keeps us from having an article on an arguably more notable person, the Cato Institute member of the same name. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This page was quite clearly begun as an attack page. The first edit, on March 27, had:

  Jerry Taylor is (as of 2005) the City Manager of Tuttle, Oklahoma. He was a party in a famous email exchange covered by Slashdot when he mistakenly contacted the developers of the CentOS operating system to complain about lack of access to the city's website. This might be considered an epitome of the <disparaging remark removed>.

  The edit summary was Nice going, jerry!. There was an external link section, pointing to the /. thread Mark alludes to.

  Later edits attempted to set it up as a proper article, including details of his education and work history. However, the suitability of this subject for an encyclopedic entry has not been established. He is essentially a private individual. The only external source on him appears to be a short local news clip [66]. This person has not been the subject of studies or reports such that there are multiple reputable sources of information on his life that would indicate suitability for an encyclopedic entry. Therefore, restoring this page with the attacks removed is a poor option. As well, speedying it under A6 was not out-of-process as the history makes clear. This is an encyclopedia; we are under no obligation to host thinly-veiled attack pages like this one. Hence, kd. —Encephalon 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't claim to be a great wikipedia author but I'm definitely not a creator of personal attack pages. Some people strive for notability, some have notability thrust upon them. The person in question behaved unconscionably, *after numerous supererogatory efforts to help him, numerous clear explanations of the actual situation, and numerous requests that he calm down and lay off the threats. His extreme obtuseness probably colored my draft -- the "nice going" bit and the PHB reference -- but the incident was quickly becoming widely talked-about and I thought the wik should have a synopsis. As I said on the article's discussion page (in "Let's agree"), it is entry-worthy because it felt so familiar to so many people, and I hear a word has now been coined out of it. btw, I think the graf in Tuttle suffices, so I'm indifferent to deletion at this point. Mateo LeFou 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Encephalon, who manages to hit the nail on the head, as always. Xoloz 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I was the one who put it in for speedy deletion to begin with. Taylor himself is entirely non-notable outside of this controversy, which is already adequately covered by the trivia mention in Tuttle, Oklahoma. Just because Slashdot and other sites are revealing the Idiot of the Week doesn't mean it's going to be a lasting Badger Badger Badger meme that's going to stick around forever. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 05:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further clarification: I put it in for speedy deletion under the criteria of non-notability as well as it being attack page. Non-notability is listed as a criteria for speedy deletion. If you remove the personal attack from the page, all you have is a bio on the manager of one of the million small town leaders in America. Definitely non-notable. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• I wish to support the keep deleted argument. The Slashdot thread emanates from a very snarky company website posting denegrating Mr. Taylor for trying to recover access to his town's site. Maintenance of this article simply validates the "attack" nature of the entire saga to date, and does not foster the respect for authority which is a hallmark of democracy. Simon Cursitor 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Since when has respect for authority been a hallmark of democracy, or any other desirable form of government? The democracy in question here, the American one, was founded by a group of men who had a notable and well-documented disrespect for the leading authority of their day. "Disrespect for authority" is no reason for removing any article at any time. Vadder 16:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endore speedy valid as a combination of A6 and A7, article's only assertion of notability is due to the disparaging section contained within. Once that are removed, nothing notable left, speedy as A7, leave the attack in, and it's speedy as A6. MartinRe 08:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: There are a lot of claims here that this is non noatable, but I would say that any entry with so many hits on google has become so -- "Results 1 - 10 of about 508,000 for jerry taylor tuttle". Half a million results is not something that is a small matter. This can be rewritten in a NPOV, but does need an entry. I don't mind rewriting this in a NPOV, but what would you count as such? — jaduncan ^{(User_talk:jaduncan)}
  • That's because you're picking up every result with people named Jerry or Taylor or have some connection to tuttle. '"jerry taylor" tuttle', which is what you should have searched for, only gets 487 hits. As long as we're counting Google hits, that's half as many as I get when you exclude my activities on Wikipedia from the results. And I am certainly not notable. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The link you label as "487 hits" now shows 11,700 hits just 2 days later. Is it notable enough yet?83.151.213.148 08:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, because most of those hits are duplicates. Google shows only 148 unique hits even now. Google is, of course, an imperfect test and it's difficult to rule a topic out purely on the basis of the google test but you certainly can't build your entire case for inclusion on just this one data point. Rossami (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, non-notable (and secondarily, attack page.) Personally I would also like to get the information out of the Tuttle, Oklahoma page. My logic goes as follows: the incident was caused by Jerry, not the city of Tuttle. As such, information about it belongs on a page about Jerry, _possibly_ with a single line linking from the city page. But Jerry was deemed non-notable. Ergo, the incident itself is non-notable and shouldn't be on the Tuttle page to begin with. -- Blorg 11:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The notability standard required for a stand alone article is higher than for a mention in a related article (or else using that logic, you could split every notable article into individual facts, non-notable for an article by themselves, and remove them one by one ending up with nothing). The amount of merge votes in afd's is an indication of that, see Tubby (dog) for a similar example. Regards, MartinRe 11:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. He's not notable in his own right and the CentOS incident can be mentioned elsewhere. David | Talk 13:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would argue very strongly that the incident in question doesn't deserve to be deleted entirely from Wikipedia. Whether it's in the Tuttle article, a Jerry Taylor article or a separate article all of its own isn't important, provided that in two years' time when someone makes reference to the event I can look it up in Wikipedia and find out what they're talking about. PeteVerdon 13:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - Whereas Wikipedia internet nerds may find this little incident newsworthy, the world does not. - Hahnchen 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody's suggesting it be mentioned on the main page, or recorded anywhere except a (hitherto) little-frequented backwater of Wikipedia ready for the few people who *are* interested in it. Plenty of things on Wikipedia are of little interest to most people; I've just hit the "random article" link and got Asobi Seksu - and I'm sorry to say that I have no interest at all in "shoegazing rock", whatever that might be. As I said above, I don't find it far-fetched that someone somewhere might one day refer to "being tuttled" or "Jerry Tayloring someone" - isn't it great that their readers can turn to Wikipedia to find out what they meant?
    I'm not arguing that this requires a whole article. Deleting Jerry Taylor is fine by me because things are explained perfectly well in Tuttle, Oklahoma. But the incident deserves a mention somewhere. PeteVerdon 19:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• This should be covered in Jerry Taylor, not in Tuttle, Oklahoma. Aside from appointing him, they're innocent. I vote to Overturn Deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachPruckowski (talk • contribs)
• Comment Prepare for a huge influx of ballot stuffers from the talk page, all feeling quite righteous in their indignation and fury. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 20:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And, obviously, as shown above, they're not going to even be bothered to sign in. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 20:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Really needs to be a redirect to Tuttle. Rich Farmbrough 23:54 30 March 2006 (UTC).
• Overturn Just because a there is a certain fallability to a character he shouldn't be removed, otherwise you couldn't have either Richard Nixon or George W. Bush on WIkipedia. Dpilat 00:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This is the 10th edit by this user.
• Keep deleted While the incident described seems to be true, I doubt it will have a lasting impact on much of anything. Besides, it's already covered elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just an update: KFOR News (www.kfor.com) covered it for several minutes on their Tuesday 10:00 pm newscast and the Oklahoman has apparently carried a story on the issue. Still not exactly world news, but it does keep the question of notability afloat. I have no real dog in this hunt. I think Mr. Taylor was being a world class jerk. I've sent angry off the cuff emails before, but I think when I've realized my mistake that I've put out a mea culpa and been able to appologize. I wish Mr. Taylor would do the same. As to whether or not this entry should have been deleted or not, I think a wait of two weeks or so will tell how much traction this story maintains or if it was just a passing breeze. But I think the speedy delete decision was too hasty. Why not just flag it NPOV as was done initially and let the discussion and process take it's course. The knee jerk delete took away the chance for later reviewers to participate in the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.40.95 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2006 March 31 (UTC)
• I vote undelete. The incident with Jerry Taylor has spawned a new phraseology and idioms "tuttle-to make an ill-considered, unreasonable technical request backed by threat." An entry in Wikipedia should be there as an explanation for the new idiom and as a etymological record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.206.123 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 2006 March 31 (UTC)
  • Comment: does not your (unsigned) suggestion point out the problem -- Tuttle (the city) is being tarred with a brush from one of its employees. Keep this deleted and in 6 months' time, if J.T. has acheived world-wide notoriety, an NPOV entry can be made, which also refers to the (to my mind provocative) responses made to Mr. Taylor by the techno-weasel (I believe that that is now one of the terms which has passed for the perjorative to the mundanely tossed-about) gentleman working for CentOs. -- Simon Cursitor 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn This is a notable incident, even if a minor one. It's typical, has drama and humour. It gives a clear-cut profile to this kind of thing. It's a real-life case study relating to lots of interesting categories -- small towns, their management, computer literacy, technical support, linux, web infrastructure, professional behaviour, crisis management, and now Wikipedia's role in providing encyclopedic coverage of these categories and their development as it happens. The incident, the exchanges, the people involved -- all these are public knowledge now, and public domain. The core of the Wikipedia article is given. The collective editing process will only add to the usefulness of it. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't have to wait until Time has frozen an incident in amber like some ancient insect before we can display it and learn from it. --xjy 09:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted attack issue aside, wholly unnotable. Eusebeus 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to endorse my own deletion? Disregard if not. Stifle 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for the reasons stated (quite well) by Encephalon. -Colin Kimbrell 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per Encephalon's excellent analysis. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• UNDELETE - Mr. Taylor's actions have coined a new term of art "Tuttled", in reference to the invocation of criminal consequences by one who is ignorant of the true situation. Since this is now a part of the English vernacular the story behind the term should be explained to give it an historical context. It is no longer about the action of a single person and an attempt to publicly vilify him, it is about a world-wide common experience of dealing with a Kafka-esque minor government official who, through ignorance, creates problems far beyond their normal sphere of influence. The page should be returned to the public.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.248.202 (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion per the above, frankly - we don't have articles in order to support defamatory protoligisms. Total verifiable biographical data is close to zero, and what is known from such sources resolutely fails to support any claim to notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 08:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Encephalon and Just zis Guy. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. If someones shows up with a well written biography of a notable living person, I'll invite them in. Otherwise, keep the door shut tight on controversial material that violates WP:BLP. --FloNight ^talk 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn This man was at the center of an incident that was widely-reported within influential circles. Jerry Taylor will continue to be referred to for years and will long be of interest when talking about the kinds of situations this incident typifies. Vadder 16:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Instead of deleting the article completely, why can't we write an objective article about Jerry and what happened. The whole point of Wiki is to write encyclopedia articles. If the article was an attack on him then it can be rewritten to be neutral. The whole email exchange about CentOS is very funny but embarisment is no reason not to have an article about someone. I do not understand how an article that is deemed an "attack" is deleted instead of the article being rewritten. --BenWhitey 17:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This comment is the 8th edit by this user.
• Overturn It is a notable event (from above) that will likely be discussed for years and has many statements directly from Mr. Taylor. Like it or not, Mr. Taylor is now known to a few more million people this week than last. This event has shed a light on PHB-style acts, dealing with threats from government officals and problems with suppporting FOSS projects. While I feel a little for Mr. Taylor, he dug himself in this hole and no one else. If he hadn't got himself in this mess I might be saying something else. Make it fair, make it objective, include the emails and please return the article. --Costoa 21:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't care that much but of course I have to vote for undelete. I'd forgotten the "nice going, jerry" bit in the summary. All in good fun, that. I still submit that there was no personal attack in my (very concise) initial draft. If the article turned into a big long flamefest, that's an argument for reversion, not deletion. Mateo LeFou 23:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Nuffle 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• I see no evidence that this person meets any of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Having said that, I'm unsure that this qualified under the strict guidelines for a speedy deletion. Since I think this would fail an AFD, I can not in good conscience recommend undeletion but if it is undeleted, immediately reopen the AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Chad78 This should be left as it applies to current events, which are a part of Wikipedia. 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikinews is thataway ----> Just zis Guy you know? 10:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert "Knox" Benfer

The articles for Robert "Knox" Benfer ave been deleted several times, mainly for the reason of needing clean-up and more information. Here is the articles for deletion page for both a Knox article and a Villain article. With clean-up, the keep votes beat the delete votes 9 to 4. Without clean-up they beat deleat 8 to 5. This new article has had some serious clean-up and is now up to Wikipedia standards.

• Overturn. Knox has done some pretty impressife things that deserve mentioning in Wikipedia, which I find to be a reliable source of information. With this article it gains some more reliability among the 2 million + Knox fans. Mushrambo 00:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• See

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (Animator)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klay World

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

  for previous opinions on previous versions of this promotional campaign. Keep deleted/Speedy current version as re-creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. The last article you posted clearly states that more people currently want the article left up there. If this article is rubbish, then so is every article dedicated to a video game character. They're informative, but there is really no need for them because they are described in the main game article and they will fade out eventually. With this article it's at least a bit more useful because it's about a real person. If this article deserves to be deleted, then so does every article dedicated to a single videogame character because it is just publicity for the character. This article is not based on publicity, it is based on a person who, at 17, had a fanbase of over 1,000,000 people (currently at over 2,000,000) and a person who also made a feature length film which was a hit at 17. Mushrambo 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The last article you posted clearly states that more people currently want the article left up there Try again. "More people"? More than what? In any case, comments from the last AfD before the article was speedily deleted:

      I now support this AfD but I believe it should be relisted by someone other than me. -- CrypticBacon

      Userfy. Not notable yet, but he's managed to get on IMDB and may become notable -- Slowmover

      ... I would like to point out that reeks very much of a recreation of Knox (Animator) Knox (animator) (protected), Klay World, etc., all of which were deleted as non-notable bios/films. -- Kinu

      To me though, the article reads like a grade school essay, and the personnel bit is rather superfluous, but he is notable in his field, and I would have suggested to keep. --Dawson

      I agree that he isnt important in the big scheme of things, however, in the field of Flash hes one of the most important people. --JoeBlowfromKokomo

      So three deletes and two weak keeps equals "clearly states that more people currently want the article left up there"? So, what, exactly, does the word "clearly" mean to you?

      (This, of course, skips the question of the lack of proof for the grandious claims Mushrambo makes for this guy's notability, but never mind, this isn't a rerun of previous AfDs.) --Calton | Talk 02:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

      • And for values of "more poeple" that include mainly rather a lot of anons, some accounts with no edit history in any other subject areas, and about two or three low-activity editors. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    • The last article you posted clearly states that more people currently want the article left up there - only if you count anonymous participants. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• By what Wikipedia states as notability, Robert Benfer passes the test. He has a very large fan base and his name is recognized by many people. He also has 808 unique hits on Google. I would also like to ask why everyone is so gung-ho to delete this article. It is a legitimate article. It seems to me that you people like to argue. Seems to be the only logical reason to make such a fuss about an article being deleted. Lucky for me I like to argue too (if I deem the subject of the argument to be worthy). I have done everything to make this article meet Wikipedia standards and yet you still want to delete it. I can do more to make it better. Just tell me what to do and I'll do it, but don't delete it on a count of lacking infformation because that is easily fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushrambo (talk • contribs)
• Endorse closures/keep deleted Valid AfDs, no substantive new evidence presented by nominator here. By the way, please someone delete the reposting and probably protect against recreation at this point. If nominator uncovers substantive evidence, he may bring it here. Xoloz 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, for the umpteenth time. I've deleted so many incarnations of this article under different names I've lost count. He'll probably find a new place to post it, but this particular one is protected until the outcome of the DRV is known. --kingboyk 13:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Seriously, have any of you actually read the article? I have listed all the short movies he has made (his claim to fame), sources citing his popularity (check his external links) and biographical information on him. If this is not substantive evidence then I don't know what is. As I said, I am willing to add anything needed to make this article meet Wikipedia standards but as of now all you are doing is ignoring my hardest efforts to make this work in your persuit to delete an article that can be a great article. I still fail to see the reason that you people want to delete this article so bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushrambo (talk • contribs)
• There are four sources given to substantiate the article. All of these are websites. Only one (IMDb) is usually considered a WP:RS reliable source. This source was considered by AfD and rejected as providing notability. New claims from reliable sources are necessary to justify a reexamination of these AfDs. Empty argumentation, and the bemoaning of Wikipedia's policies for having excluded something you enjoy, is not sufficient, and is probably counterproductive, as this forum hears such complaints everyday from nice, but ill-informed people who wish a "pet" article were notable than our forums have judged. Please sign your comments with four tildes. Xoloz
  • Comment Being on IMDB is generally a minimal criterion of notability, which he does meet. I'm leaning towards letting the article stay. JoshuaZ 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD considered the IMDb claim, and rejected it as proving notability. Xoloz 03:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Glad to see that there is a person here that shares my opinion. I am currently in contact with Knox to see if I can get any more concrete information. My only goal is to make this article be sutable for everyone. Mushrambo 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You know something, I think you all should leave this article be and go focus on articles that actually should be deleted. I remember a few months ago there was a digimon article on a Priestressmon that had no sources, no proof, no reason for existance. It 100% didn't exist. Where you then? It took the arguing of people like me to get that article deleted because the digimon didn't exist. Now I've come here with information on a non-fictional, REAL person and you want it deleted. Tell me what is needed to make this article work and I can do it but other than that I can't do anything with you constantly ignoring my questions to state that it should be deleted. I have given you many sources that prove he does exist and that show what he has done (in the form of links to all his movies) and yet you still won't let the article stay. Just tell me why you are pushing for this article to remain deleted. I would think I've sufficently provided proof of notability but I could be mistaken and I can get more information if need be. Mushrambo 12:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We can reconsider in the future but I think for now notability has not been demonstrated and I'm not impressed by the repeated attempts to craftily recreate the article under new names. --kingboyk 13:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid AfDs, validly closed, no new evidence, massive gaming of the system. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have found two new sites that should help to prove his notability. They are located here and here. These sites prove Knox's popularity and show how he made his feature film, Klay World: Off the Table. Mushrambo 14:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out more times than I can count in respect of this particular subject, what is absent is reliable sources, Citing more unreliable sources changes nothing. Just zis Guy you know? 17:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think I have just the solution for this, then. The Washington Post has an article about claymations and it clearly mentions that, and I quote, "http://www.flashplayer.com : Heavy on the animation, this site features Web cult favorites from "Knox's Korner," the crazy claymation creations of 18-year-old Texan Robert Benfer." This may be a reference to flashplayer.com, but it clearly mentions that the creations of one Robert Benfer are "Web cult favorites". If the Washington Post isn't a reliable source then I don't know what is. Mushrambo 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That makes the website reliable and possibly satisfying WP:WEB, as best then this fellow's article should be merged into the article for the site. JoshuaZ 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - Even after reading the articles linked to above. We do not just recreate the article again and again until it is kept. - Hahnchen 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You neglect to realize that what was missing from the other articles like this were reliable sources, which I have now supplied. I change my vote to Overturn and Merge because, although I do find him noteworthy, I don't think there is enough information on him currently for him to need his own article. Mushrambo 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello? What? I told you that I had read the articles, even from the reliable Washington Post. However, I still don't think this guy is notable. And where would you merge it to? And how much information would you keep? At most, it should be a one line mention or a few sentences. You don't need to overturn to do that. - Hahnchen 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we have had a misunderstading. I ment the other Knox articles here on Wikipedia. There have been many people who have wanted this article up but have not been able to find a reliable source to back up that he is a real person and has a large fan base. I have now provided a site which proves that he exists and that he has a large fan base. The reason I believe he deserves more than a few line on the flashplayer site is because he has done more than what the lines on the flashplayer article say he has done. It says, and I quote, "Widely acclaimed claymation author, and creator of the Clay Series, The Matrix Spoofs, and other features. Gives the most quantitative content to UGOP." He has done a lot more than add "the most quantitative content to UGOP". At 17, he made a very successful, low-budget movie and has sold many copies of another DVD which has some of his best claymations on it. Maybe there isn't enough about him to need his own article, but there is enough for him to at least have a larger section on the flashplayer site dedicated to him, even though he has done so much more. I now think that the deletion should be Overturned and the article be marked as a stub untill more information becomes available. Mushrambo 21:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have another piece of relevant information that pretty much sums up the reason that the Knox article should be brought back. Legendary Frog's article is the same as this one. It's an article about a flash artist who has made flash movies for both Newgrounds and FlashPlayer. This was also put up for AfD and it won after about two tries. Now I post this article, you delete it, I finally back it up with a reliable source and you still shoot it down. By what I can see Legendary Frog's site has NO Reliable sources and yet it's still there. Plus, by what I can see Knox has accomplished more than Legendary Frog (Legendary Frog has only made flash videos while Knox has made flash claymation AND has gone on to take those ideas from his claymations and make a feature film out of them. Not only that but he has also started work on yet another feature film). If Legendary Frog can stay, why can't Knox? Mushrambo 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Look- the guy has a "cult following"; ask anyone under 15 who has access to the Internet about that. There's one "notability" criteria. Also, he has more than 2 million fans- certainly a large fan base. He's sold more than 5,000 copies of his full-length movie Klay World: Off the Table on DVD. He's got many ''distinguished'' hits on Google. His Klay shorts are internet phenomenons. Colleagues of his like Legendary Frog and that guy who makes a series about a squirrel named Foamy have their own pages. They don't have the most movies in the top Ratings list at UGOPlayer. They've never created, produced, and sold a feature length movie. This man- who only legally became an adult a few months ago- has notability, potential, and talent. He's a respected member of the Internet community, and should be treated as such. User:SERDUN
  • Thank you. This is the point I have been trying to make all along. There are flash artists listed in Wikipedia who haven't done HALF as much as Knox and yet their articles are still here. If they deserve to be here then so does Knox because he is as good, if not better than most of the ones here. I'm not downing any of the others listed here, but Knox, simply put, has done MORE than any of them combined. He has accomplished many things that are amazing, espicially since he accomplished them before he turned 18 (He was still 17 when he released Klay World: Off the Table, if I'm not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong). Plus, by looking at his NG profile, he states that he is working on three movies: Villain, Spatula Madness and Nimbin. He also states that he and a friend are working on two TV pilots so I can see him doing big things in the future. Mushrambo 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Does have an IMDB entry, but credited with one direct-to-video "movie" with a listed budget of $1,000. I tend to be an inclusionist on actors, filmmakers, and such, but that just doesn't cut it. Wish him the best of luck for the future though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If he doesn't cut it then nether does Legendary Frog or any of the other flash artists on UGOPlayer or Newgrounds because they haven't even accomplished that much. Mushrambo 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you wholeheartedly. You are free to nominate those for deletion too if you wish. However, the ol' "this article whould stay because there's other worse/less-notable articles on wikipedia" rationale just plain doesn't work. If other worse articles exist (and they do) it's because nobody has noticed them and deleted them yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I also voted delete on the Legendary Frog page, only for the dastardly video game flash maker to recreate the article at a sneaky new place without me noticing. - Hahnchen 05:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they don't deserve to be here (although some of them really don't deserve to be here). All I'm saying is that I thing Robert Benfer deserves to be here. How many people do you know of that have made a successful, feature-length, low budget movie before they turn 18? He is a noteworthy flash artist because he has done something that none of the flash artists on UGOPlayer or Newgrounds have done before. He has taken his series and made a movie based on it. He has a large fan base and his name is recognized all over the internet. I have supplied all the information needed to prove that this article is worthy of a Wikipedia article and yet no one else will accept this. You should go focus on the articles that actually deserve to be deleted because I believe that I have given sufficent information to prove the notability and credibility of this article. Mushrambo 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not saying that they don't deserve to be here (although some of them really don't deserve to be here)." is an incredibly funny statement, when you think about it. -Colin Kimbrell 15:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted Valid AfD, nn subject, & please no comment from Mushrambo. Eusebeus 11:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. This article hasn't been deleted at AFD, only speedied, and has an assertion of notability. Based on that alone, the deletion process has technically not been followed. Stifle 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• The subject has, though, at multiple places, and the creator knows this, from my reading of the histories of the deleted articles. Just zis Guy you know? 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's where the assertion of notability comes in. The previous articles have not had any source to prove notability. I have now proven this articles notability using a reliable source and therefore make it so that this article should be relisted. Mushrambo 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• After a lot of thought I change my vore to Endorse deletion. I have realized that, although he has done some noteworthy things, he is nowhere near Wikipedia level yet. I also believe that the other flash artists on Wikipedia should be reduced to a few lines of mention on the pages for the sites where they are known the best. Mushrambo 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Young Writers Society

AFD debate is here. It was closed as a "delete" by W.marsh, but Violetriga reverted the closure and undeleted the article saying that "3 deletes and 1 keep is not consensus for deletion". I have reclosed the deabte, and deleted the article. Since this is a contested AFD decision, I am bringing the thing here for review. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Sjakkalle's close/keep deleted. Violetriga's action was inappropriate, and I hope she knows better. Admins aren't supposed to revert AfD closes, but to bring them here. In a controversial case, no one should ever revert a closure in which he/she voted. 1k/3d = 75%, which is a perfectly valid consensus. This was a blantant error on her part. Xoloz 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted clearly a non-notable website, and generally 75% is classed as consensus. Computerjoe's talk 15:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, 4 voters and 75% is enough for a consensus on a non-notable website. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Í
• Keep deleted. Whether or not the decision to close the AfD was right (and I would have relisted to get more consensus but that's by the by), the subject is manifestly not notable. David | Talk 16:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse and keep deleted. Hopefully the matter has been discussed with Violetriga so as to prevent similar situations happening in the future. I also can't help noticing that despite the claim of having 1000 members, it also has a much lower Alexa rank than my own personal website (and believe me, folks, that's not notable). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - three people saying delete is not enough. The site has 1000+ users and I think it's credit to them that they didn't try and bombard the AfD with their members. Alexa rankings are poor for small scale things, and that's what this is, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Yes, I should've come here with it but I don't have the time right now. I think it's quite disappointing to delete this with so few people commenting on the AfD. violet/riga (t) 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure. The reason given for attempting to invalidate the closure was in error. The community has considered the creation of a quorum for deletion decisions and rejected it every time. Four informed and articulate participants is a very respectable showing for an AFD decision and more than sufficient to be reasonably sure that the decision is good. Remember that while only four people will have commented, many more will have scanned the list of deletion discussions and reviewed the discussion. If it looks like a clear decision and you agree with the direction, our instructions explicitly say "don't try to vote on everything." Rossami (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Well, only two things to say really. First, it would be nice to relist every AfD until we got 10+ comments or whatever, but 4 is actually the average for non-controversial AfDs, it seems like... relisting all of those would take considerable resources. But the nuances of closing and relisting are kind of complicated and uninteresting to go into here. My main point is that I wish someone had brought this up on my talk page if they had a problem with my call, the first I heard of it was looking through DRV and saying "hey that article looks familiar..." --W.marsh 21:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Relisting would probably not have achieved a different result, since the article makes no compelling case for notability, to my mind. It does not rise above the level of the average web forum. Original close was valid, even if I would prever non-unanimous AfDs with few votes to be relisted. Just zis Guy you know? 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

27 March 2006

Mike Murdock

I disagree with the A7 in that he is a world famous pastor, author and song writer. The speedy delete was unwarranted.

[[67]] [[68]] [[69]]

• Overturn, take to AfD. Article did assert notability. Just zis Guy you know? 09:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD. Might be notable. David | Talk 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/list at AfD Contested notability deserves fair hearing. Xoloz 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (Amazon bares out that he's a well-published author, since we keep such there is little point in relisting - someone can AfD it if they think they can make the case). --Doc ^ask? 13:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Speedy Keep There is enough to make this fellow notable. Long history of high profile ministery with multiple TV shows and books. No reason to list on Afd. [70] --FloNight ^talk 18:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

David R. Smith

Smith was a candidate for Congress in the special election in Ohio last year to replace Rob Portman. He lost the primary to Jean Schmidt. The article was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Smith) on the grounds that he was non-notable but other candidates' articles survived the RFD process, e.g. James John Parker and Jeff Sinnard. I gathered this and similar articles which were deleted at Ohio second congressional district election, 2005/Minor candidates in order to provide a complete record of the election. Currently, Smith is challenging incumbent Mike DeWine for the U.S. Senate. I'd like to restore this article as at least one other of DeWine's Republican challengers, William G. Pierce, has his own article. PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, his information has been smerged into a larger article about minor candidates. He only got 0.8% of the vote, not particularly notable. Valid AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted, per Zoe. WP:BIO says people elected to national office, not people who don't even make it past the Primary (by a looooong way in this case, apparently). When he's as famous for losing as Bill Boaks or Screaming Lord Sutch I guess he'll qualify :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid merge. If he becomes notable again, can be demerged. David | Talk 11:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. But he's running in a statewide race now. And apparently he's been a candidate for Congress in Tennessee as well. Since Pierce, another candidate in the primary, has a page, why shouldn't Smith? PedanticallySpeaking 16:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Because this is an encyclopaedia with articles about notable popel and things, not a news source or political discussion forum. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Zoe, a lot of people run at a state level, this simply isn't notable. Incidnetally, I wouldn't object to deleting Pierce. JoshuaZ 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game)

This discussion has become very long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game)

MPOVNSE

• MPOVNSE

• Wikipedia:MPOVNSE

Why was it deleted? Quoting somebody is not a copyvio.

How was it deleted so quickly? Can articles grow if deletions occur at this rate? Or are articles effectively censored by this means?

If the article does not stand on its own, it should have been merged perhaps into NPOV or Wikipedia:NPOV or perhaps The Register or Andrew Orlowski or some other page .. is there one for Anti-Wikipedians or Feedback or Wikipedia:In the press or Wikipedia:Publicity, or Trolls or perhaps into the discussion page of some community page .... and a redirect put in place, according to Wikipedia:Deletion. -- Patentnonsense 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Valid speedy under CSD A6: Attack pages. David | Talk 13:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete into project space and tag as an essay, I guess; it's a valid take on NPOV and m:MPOV, although it also displays a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OWN. Amusingly, the originator is arguably the one guilty of MPOVNSE! Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, it's not an essay by a Wikipedian, but by a journalist, and as such, it's a copyvio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see that it qualified as an attack, but it clearly was 1) a copyright violation, 2) self-referential to Wikipedia and 3) an essay. It might be appropriate in a user page and, if the phrase catches on widely, perhaps as a Wikipedia-space page but definitely not as an article-space page. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

26 March 2006

Omar Q Beckins

This article is not a hoax, as it was ruled per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Omar_Q._Beckins. Omar Q Beckins was a real person, and although there are no online biographies of him, there is a Academic Challenge tournament named after him at White Plains High School. (link) The print source that I cited on the original page is also proof of his existence. I have spoken to the author of that biography and he has confirmed that Omar Q Beckins was indeed a real person. For refrence, I have created a mirror of the article (all content sans wikification) within my user page at User:Bonus_Onus/Omar_Q_Beckins. Please undelete this article. Bonus Onus 23:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a citation for the print source, please? If there are no sources which can verify the content of this article, it fails Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement. If there is no publicly-available information about Mr. Beckins, it is likely that he does not meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline, or he is a fake person. I performed a LexisNexis search for "beckins" and found no articles about him (I was looking for an obituary). Several parts of the article are extremely dubious, including the claim that he worked on the video game Pong when he was 12 and that he helped plan Operation Entebbe. I have a hard time believing that the IDF would involve an 18 year old Indonesian immigrant in such a sensitive operation. Rhobite 00:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, keep deleted. Even if there was some tournament named after him at a high school, that is not an assertion of notablity. The only thing remotely resembling an assertion of notablity is that he worked on Pong (when he was 12, no less), and I see no sources for this. I'm not sure it's a hoax, because if I wanted to create a hoax on Wikipedia, I wouldn't make it as boring as this article was. However, it's still devoid of any sourced material which makes this person notable. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Even if there was some tournament named after him at a high school, that is not an assertion of notablity. Or even an assertion of existence! FreplySpang (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Article is dubious, unverifiable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a Pong-making, kibbutz-living, 18-year-old super-spy without a high school diploma (but with a Princeton one three years later) is pretty extraordinary. Xoloz 06:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nominator should not create hoax articles nor make vexatious DRV nominations when they get deleted. David | Talk 13:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. If not hoax then unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 14:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted. "I spoke to the author" isn't something that any of us can verify. FreplySpang (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, i will search for better evidence of Omar Q Beckins, but i dont take kindly to people asserting that he is a hoax, because he was a real person, even if his story seems hard to believe. 69.118.193.143 23:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Stir

I found this in CAT:CSD and speedy deleted it. A mere couple of hours later, the author posted this anger-dripping response on my talk page:

I think it's poor of you to delete the Stir page I created. I think the band is back on the upswing. The music is available from allofmp3.com and mp3.com. I find it unfortunate that you find a piece of American pop culture, not on your radar. It's okay if the world passed you by some twenty years ago, but there are those of us that are here now and do care about bands that might only have footnote entries in American culture.

Please respond to this post here or on my user page. This seems like an unfair deletion. A still born birth. Completely unwarranted. The page that you deleted fits none of the "speedy deletion" guidelines. In this respect I feel that your administrator priveleges should be stripped. posted on user page by User:Krakrjak, moved by Alf melmac 09:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think a single misguided deletion warrants removal of AdministrativePower®, no matter how much I have hurt someone's feelings, I have to add this here to allow other administrators to express their point of view too. I don't vote either to overturn or enforce my deletion. JIP | Talk 10:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not an admin, so can't see the state of the article as deleted, but as it stands, it is probably not a speedy as mentioning two albums, one with a major label is enough of an assertion of notibility to not be a CSD A7. Obviously this is based on the article as it is now, but if that is the case, on hindsight (always 20/20 I know :), it might have been better to change the speedy to an afd, which it might fail, if the assertions don't stand up. That said, the creators response was well over the top, and the article itself requires sources to back up the claims it makes of "wide critical acclaim", "cemented themselves" and "unbelievable rendition", or, failing that, rewriting these comments in a neutral tone. Regards, MartinRe 10:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. At the very least, this should have gone to AfD, but the band surely meets a number of WP:MUSIC requirements and probably shouldn't have been speedied. I'd imagine you *could* overturn your own speedy, but it's here now, regardless.
• Undelete not being an admin I can't read the article, but from the comments above it appears that it easily meets WP:MUSIC Cynical 16:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist Clearly a contested speedy so no harm in AfD'ing, which I will do now, since someone has reposted the thing. Xoloz 16:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete & list on AfD, but warn user for incivility. Also, "back on the upswing" hardly sounds like a shoo-in for WP:NMG Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

24 March 2006

The Go

The article was deleted after this AFD. One of the claims was that the Jack White connection may have been a hoax. I managed to find verification of this by looking at the band's record label. One of the other claims in the AFD was that the band fails WP:MUSIC, which it clearly doesn't because of the presence of 1/2 of the White Stripes. Leithp 16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, doesn't look like the Jack White connection was weighed in the AfD. I'd say relist as well, but only if verification of a national tour can't be found. I wish I had caught this AfD when it occurred. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I see the need for relisting, given that the White Stripes connection alone allows it to pass WP:MUSIC doesn't it? For what it's worth there's this link to a band profile with footage of a couple of gigs in Texas and somewhere else. Leithp 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You and I are in agreement on this, I'm just thinking ahead - if it's going to be a straight undelete, I'd rather see it reach two or three WP:MUSIC guidelines. Given that the SubPop page gives a synopsis of a Detroit newspaper feature, I doubt this would have any problems in a relisting at this point anyway. badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Frankly, I'm surprised that a band on the influential Sub Pop label (home of Nirvana, Sonic Youth, Soundgarden, Saint Etienne, and many others) would be deleted at all, Jack White or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, AFD can be a little, uhh, over-zealous at times. Particularly with regard to bands, though I imagine this is because of the sheer volume of them that go through there. Leithp 16:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, I've have had to undelete three other bands on Sub Pop in the past (Cat Butt, The U-Men and Frausdots). They were all because of misapplications of WP:MUSIC as a CSD though, so I didn't have to go through deletion review. Leithp 23:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, relist This is almost to the point where I'd go with an outright keep result here, but I'd like to AfD learn from its mistakes, as contributors to the second debate will be reminded to be more careful. Besides, I suppose someone might argue over the finer points of WP:MUSIC. Xoloz 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm happy that you still have faith that the culture of AFD can change. It's endearing to a cynical soul such as myself. Leithp 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I won't defend the crew on AfD, this time they got it completely wrong. May be a case for a watercooler meeting of closing admins. The guys do solid and necessary work, but there are mistakes. Just zis Guy you know? 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• OpposeComment. I think I should weigh in on this one, as I was the original AFD nominator. The group listed on the SubPop page is NOT (I repeat, NOT) the same group that was in the AFD nomination. The latter Go is a group that claims to be INFLUENCED by 70s and 80s music. The Go affected by the AFD claimed to be ACTIVE in the 1970s (quite a difference in meaning there). I have no problem with the latter group being listed on any article due to notability, but the former article did not meet any criteria whatsoever. I spent quite a bit of time looking due to claims of performances at CGBGs and other significant clubs (playing at CGBGs itself is usually a sign of notability), but as you can see from the Google hits, no such mentions appeared. Additionally, there was no mention of Jack White or anyone else of note on that article, which if there was would have aided in proving notability. Combine that with the fact that the editors of the article in question were either IPs or one-shot editors gave us strong indicators of a hoax. So while the newer Go deserves its article, in no shape or form should the original article be returned.--み使い Mitsukai 20:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking through the history, what appears to have happened is this: You nominated the 70s band earlier this month and it was deleted following the AFD. A new article was then written on 16th March which contains the Jack Black reference, this was speedy deleted as a re-creation of the AFD article (which it clearly wasn't). The error seems to have been on the part of the speedy nominator and deleter, rather than the AFD crowd. My apologies. Of course the 16th March version, the one debated above, should be re-created. Leithp 12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on that, I agree the article can be recreated, as long as it's from that time frame and not the hoax version.--み使い Mitsukai 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Ummm, unless I have missed something here, Mitsukai's point seems to be well taken: perhaps the watercooler discussion should be reserved for the reviewers here. Eusebeus 11:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. This seems like a result of the policy change re: viewing deleted edits, more than anything else. -Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

John Fullerton

Article has been deleted twice. The first time after a debate which seemed to centre around the fact that sock-puppets got involved, damaging the subjects credibility, and the fact that I had failed to include the relevant references in the article. The second time I added the article I updated it with the references and fixed the introductory paragraph to highlight the subject's notability, yet it was speedy deleted as someone clearly confused it for an identical copy of the previous article. With references included, the subject met the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfullerton (talk • contribs)

• Endorse. Claims to notability made in the article are:
  1. Played a trial for Derry City F.C.. Someone who played a trial for Manchester United F.C. wouldn't deserve an article for that reason; neither does someone who played a trial for a much smaller club.
  2. Holds "record for the second-longest range goal scored from a free kick in the UK and Ireland". No such record exists; in fact there is no such thing as a record for second-best anything.
  3. Got funding for the (public) school where he works. Again, nothing particularly extraordinary about a government-funded school receiving government funds, even in the environment of Northern Ireland in the 1980s. If it was such a "notable achievement" as the article claims, then specific references and citations should be provided to substantiate this.
  4. Opened a restaurant.
  5. Received a past-pupils award from his school. This award does not have an article of its own, so it's not notable either.

  So while John Fullerton is undoubtedly an admirable character and a pillar of the community, he fails WP:N. For reference, here's the previous AfD. Disclaimer: I voted "Delete" on that AfD. Demiurge 11:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse. Keep deleted, for the reasons stated in the original AFD. Regarding his football career - he was on trial at these clubs, not a professional footballer. The "free-kick scored from the second-longest distance" is trivial in my opinion. As is being a "overhead kick specialist". I'm also wondering how a semi-professional team in the 1970s measured this as being the second longest? User:Johnfullerton created a page called "Overhead and Freekick Specialist" to justify this. It's since been deleted. Regarding his career in education - hundreds of teachers in hundreds of schools across the country have won funding, I don't see why on this occasion it is remarkable. Admirable, but not notable. In my opinion User:Johnfullerton is trying to justify this by stating quite dramatically that he "negotiated with the British government and brokered a deal". This makes it sound like he negotiated with the Prime Minister personally, which obviously isn't the case. The page is full of dramatic POV as well. In summary this is suitable for a St. Columb's school magazine, but not an encyclopedia. Who are the sock puppets being referred to? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: There are a number of important points to address here.

  i) One of Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion: Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport.

  Fullerton does not have to be a professional footballer to satisfy this. He merely has had to have played for Derry City, a full-time team. And that he did.

  ii) Of course there are records for second-bests. I'm sure Wikipedia have plenty of articles on, say, sprinters who never finished first in their field. Similarly, their times are recorded. Didn't talk of David Beckham's half-way line goal for Manchester United against Wimbledon a few seasons ago in the English Premier League continue seasons after? Of course, the distance he scored from has gone down in the record-books and it even gets a mention on his Wikipedia entry. Anyhow, this was the achievement which originally brought Fullerton into the spotlight in Northern Ireland as an upcoming talent (sadly that potential was hampered by injury). To back up my assertion that it is a record, it is compiled along with numerous other records in Fifa's centenial book. Therefore, the methods Derry City used to measure the distance aren't really that important, are they?

  iii) Specific references and citations have been provided. I cannot link to them directly as they are in print and not on the web. I would be grateful if this was acknowledged, as it has been continually ignored, to an offensive level by this stage.

  iv) His winning of the funding was a notable achievement in 1980s' Northern Ireland as a member of staff in a Roman Catholic school. Who are you to claim it is not? You are not even from the region. The nature of how the funding was won is what is so notable about this.

  I'll re-quote what I said on the article's discussion page: Of course being funded by the State isn't a notable achievement - it's the nature of how the funding was achieved in Fullerton's case that makes his stand out as a unique one. Walking down a street isn't noteworthy, yet Wikipedia has pages documenting the life/lives of, say, Martin Luther King, or other people who demonstrated publically for personal/popular causes. The nature of how they walked down streets and the ideas behind their actions are what made them notable - not the physical acts themselves.

  As you say, many others have won funding. However, what sets Fullerton's case out as being special is that he, along with Tony Furey, was/were the first to challenge the Government without the backing of the Catholic Church or its high-profile members on the school's board of governers. This set an important precedent and later influenced the allocation of funds to the development of a new school building for the Catholic Thornhill school and the setting up of a new Catholic school, Lumen Christi, in Derry. It was actual staff who took inspiration from Fullerton in these cases, rather than rely on the bulk of their investment coming from the Church. Previously, Catholic school's (in the face of prejudice, and fear of further discrimination) dared not challenge what they were allocated.

  Let me quote another criterion: Major local political figures.

  Fullerton meets this criterion. He is seen locally as an individual who broke down barriers and divides, which had been long-ingrained in the Northern Irish psyche, with dialogue. He has been commended for his use of peaceful and patient methods when many in the Nationalist community were sympathetic to the violent means of the IRA. As is mentioned in the article and in a book by Mahon, the reason often suggested as to why Fullerton is not as noteworthy as certain others in Northern Ireland was because some members of the Nationalist community frowned upon his playing of soccer. They saw it as a foreign game. Along with this, numerous others and many Republicans felt he was taking the soft approach with a Government who, they felt, needed to be taught a lesson of some sort and held by the scruff of the neck for remaining on Irish soil. They wanted Britain out and saw violence as the way to achieve this aim, whereas Fullerton's methods clearly demonstrated that he was, for now, content with living under and engaging with the 'foreign oppressor'.

  v) The restaurant is not a major issue, but he did win awards and it adds depth to the article.

  vi) The past-pupil award does not have an article of it's own as the St. Columb's College page suffices for that purpose. Any attempt to include Fullerton on that page has also been struck down.

  vii) Just to clear up a blatant lie above (it would be helpful if contributors to this continuing vandetta againt the subject got their facts right before firing), I did not create the "overhead and free kicking specialist" page that is talked of. And, the sockpuppets referred to are those who involved themselves in the original debate, severely damaging the subject's credibility. I have a feeling that word of the article probably made its way around Fullerton's school, resulting in excited pupils adding their word.--Johnfullerton 13:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • "i) One of Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion: Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport.
    Fullerton does not have to be a professional footballer to satisfy this. He merely has had to have played for Derry City, a full-time team. And that he did."

    Um, no. As stated: "Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league". Derry City play in the League of Ireland, which is not now and never has been a fully professional league. Bastun 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Query Are you, Johnfullerton, the same John Fullerton as the article is about? The username choice and user page content suggests some connection but writing in the third person above suggest otherwise. Could you please clarify, as it does affect notibility claims as per WP:AUTO Regards, MartinRe 15:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not Fullerton himself. I merely adopted the username to include the article the first time round. I suppose it was rather short-sighted of me to use the subject's name as my username, but anyway ...--Johnfullerton 15:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No worries, thanks for clarifying that. MartinRe 15:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I see no reason to overrule the afd that voted delete. As Demiurge put it, while admirable but not particlularly notable for an encylopedia. (The comparasion with David Beckam isn't a good one, as he's would be notable without that, I'd even suggest that the free kick is notable because it was by him, more then him being notable because of the free kick.) The free kick, PP award, resturant, and other triva do add depth, but once you you take out those items, there is very little left. For the funding issue, probably notable, but not enough for a stand alone article. Are there any verifible sources that say this was notable at the time, or list of funding stats to show that this was an unusual investment? (I'm not doubting that it is true, but WP:V is about verifibility, not truth, and it would also be important to find out who regarded it as notable). Also, the current article would need a lot of WP:NPOV work with terms like "wondrous", "huge influence", "pushed hard", "ridden to the core", etc. Overall, I'd stick to the afd, and keep it deleted. Sorry. MartinRe 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per MartinRe. Nominator, User:JohnFullerton, would have WP stretch its standards of notability to a great extreme. This is a tenuous proposition at AfD; here at DRV, it is almost surely condemned to fail, for DRV needs a reason to overturn the previous debate. Such reason is here lacking, as nominator essentially reargues the AfD. Xoloz 17:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• I would have to disagree. References were not included in the original article. They have now been added. The previous debate's closing administrator did not take these references into account.--Johnfullerton 17:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (Please note that I am the admin who most recently speedy deleted the article, and who suggested that the article's creator bring it here for community review. Therefore, would the closing admin please feel free to disregard my comments if s/he sees fit). I speedy deleted the article not because of any misunderstanding, but because I felt and feel that it was not substantially any closer to proving notability under WP:BIO than when it was deleted at AFD. The fact remains that the gentleman in question only played for a professional club on a trial basis and, AFAIC, all other claims to notability (such as opening a restuarant or securing some funding) are tenuous at best. --kingboyk 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse deletion and Strong keep deleted per everyone and Xoloz in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: added "strong" to vote, per Zoe's excellent research (see below) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. (I didn't take part in AFD for this article before) mikka (t) 23:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted, the hoaxing continues, I see. The AfD page gives a long and detailed description of the sordid attempts made by these St. Columb's kids to try to make their teacher notable when he isn't. I have deleted the recreation of the article and protected the page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion - a player from the League of Ireland would be notable enough to keep in Wikipedia, which after all, has no real limit on the amount of articles it can have. Don't forget that Ireland does not have big leagues like other countries.--File Éireann 18:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse, keep deleted. I remember this deletion debate vividly, subject of some of the most blatant astroturfing ever seen outside of Louisiana Baptist University. I spend a long time looking into this at the time and was then, and am now, solidly unconvinced that this subject is capable of being coverd neutrally from reliable sources. Definitely a case of WP:HOLE. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Query Is File Éireann an administrator? I don't see how his very valid point can be ignored. Is what he says not correct?--Johnfullerton 11:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, he is, but an administrator's opinion on a topic carries no more weight than that of any other regular Wikipedia editor. I am also an administrator, BTW. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And the second question you missed there?--Johnfullerton 00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Opinions are not "correct" or "incorrect", so question is not relevent. Also, can you please remove the deleted article from your main user page as requested, as having a multiply deleted article about "John Fullerton" on a page called User:Johnfullerton is bound to cause confusion, and could well be seen as an attempt to circumvent the deletion policy by publishing it anyway. Article was userified to a user sub page, so won't be lost. Regards, MartinRe 07:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • But I'm not so sure that it is an opinion. Is it a fact or an opinion that players from the League of Ireland would be notable enough to keep in Wikipedia?--Johnfullerton 14:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
          • It's an opinion, as others have already disagreed with him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
            • So the fact is that players from the League of Ireland would be notable enough to feature in Wikipedia or not?--Johnfullerton 18:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Using the criterion you supplied above (Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league), then the answer is no. Derry City DC play in the Eircom League, which is not and never has been a professional league. And actually on the topic of 'Major local political figures' - surely that implies someone who has been elected, or, at least, who has run for office? Bastun 00:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
                • No, of course it doesn't imply such. You're just twisting definitions now. Also, care to explain why other League of Ireland players have articles on here? Some even being from Division One. And what about GAA players? Why do they have articles? They play in amateur competitions.--Johnfullerton 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Valid AfD. David | Talk 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for the same reasons I voted delete back in December. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain and comment. It strikes me that editors are told there is virtually unlimited space in Wikipedia. While I can appreciate that not every thing, person or place that ever existed should necessarily be included in an Encyclopedia, there are two things that I would question: Firstly, that the person does appear to have done something, and secondly that a page of a couple of kilobytes would hardly affect Wiki too much. It appears that vastly more space has been taken up with discussion about the article's existence than the article itself. In past decades limits have had to be put on the number of articles an encylopedia could have, balanced against practical use and physical size. This is the 21st century though - a time when several translations of the Bible, illustrated and enhanced, can fit easily onto a single CD. Also, I would suggest that there might very well be people of less note included as articles in this 'pedia. I'll be interested to hear reactions to what I have said. In the meantime though, perhaps a compromise would be to find some other, related article, and include much of the information about this fella in it. --Mal 02:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please spend some time reading the many talk pages and archives on this topic. Space on the encyclopedia has very little to do with it. Verifiability and our ability to maintain the article over the long-term, however, are serious concerns. I recommend starting with the Talk pages of WP:BIO. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Feel free to re-read my comment. I don't feel I need to look through the history of discussion about this - its quite clear-cut: is this person notable enough to be worthy of the creation of an article, or not. I have outlined my thoughts on the matter, and suggested a possible compromise. --Mal 13:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I sent an email to St. Columb's College and asked them who their "Alumnus Illustrissimus" award recipient for the Past Pupils' Association was for the past three years, and I got a response from "D Carlin", who indicates that the 2004 award recipient was "all past pupils in honour of the school's 125th anniversary". This is in direct contradiction to the contention in the article that Fullerton won the award in that year. 2005's recipient was HE Ambassador James Sharkey. No award has yet been given for 2006. The previous award winners are listed on the St. Columb's home page. Therefore at least one of the supposed accomplishments of this non-notable soccer coach is revealed to be a lie. Now prove the rest. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how is that a contradiction, assuming Fullerton was indeed a past pupil? Wouldn't he be included among "all past pupils" and thus have received the award in 2004? (Note that I'm not suggesting it's notable considering the wide net cast!) Powers 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The article said, "In 2004 Fullerton won the Past Pupils' Association Alumnus Illustrissimus award for his work and special achievement and considerable contribution to the field of overhead and free kicking". It did not say that he won it for being a past student. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, I think my office should have an article. It contains a computer ("the computer" was Time Magazine's 1982 Man of the Year) and exists on Earth ("Earth" was the 1988 Man of the Year). I had no idea rooms in my house were so famous! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So, some more questions, now that the Alumnus award has been kicked out: Please provide evidence that he ever played for Derry City. The image in the article on your User page with all of the hair could be anybody. Please provide evidence that he was involved in the funding issue. We have yet to have seen a single supporting document. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Now you're disputing photographic evidence? Clearly the John Fullerton in both photos are the same person - one being a younger him (his Derry City days photograph) and the other being an older him (the awards photograph), of course. I don't see how your investigation has uncovered anything contrary to what the article states. He did win the award and he collected it at the awards event. Evidence of the funding issue has been provided.--Johnfullerton 15:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Every single past student came and picked up an award? I find that hard to believe. And I still have seen no documentation that he ever played for Derry City. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Zoe. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the whole thing is reeking of a hoax perpetuated by some pesky kids. And the pesky kids would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for AFD! That's right, kids, the worm is on the other boot. Proto||type 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

23 March 2006

Talk:Userbox

I'm not questioning deletion of Userbox itself; it was a cross-namespace redirect. It's wrong to blank the associated talk page, though; wrong to rd it to the corresponding (deleted) article; and very wrong to protect a talk page of any kind. I'd like to see pre-existing discussion (if any) restored; and the talk page left open for further discussion. It is possible that an encyclopedic article on Userboxes can be written; if so, there is only one right place to talk about it. I'm willing to see {{deletedpage}} protected on the article until substantial debate develops on talk -- but not to see talk forbidden. John Reid 21:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted Orphaned talkpages are speedyable Cynical 16:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If content originally on this page was a redirect or was moved, move talk page discussion to discussion page for destination. --carlb 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Control Monger

Speedied by User:Gator1 as recreated content, recreator alleges that defects in initial article that caused it to fail AFD were repaired. Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist "the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical." I can't ensure this, but when I looked at the article, I appeared to reference the major gaming pubs and was not written in the promotional style, which where the substantive objections. Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, relist. Substantially different. Just zis Guy you know? 00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, relist. When it is I'll vote delete - I'm not convinced that we should have every freely downloadable game that gets in what seem to be rather obscure online 'magazines' - but, as Guy said, this article is different from the ones that were discussed on AfD before. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. But not a WP:SNOW case, and the content was definitely more encyclopaedic than what was deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 21:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

California State Route 85

I disagree with the deletion of this redirect in order to move State Route 85 (California) over it. I do not feel that this page is the appropriate place to discuss this, as no content was lost, but Gentgeen, the deleting admin, does (for what seems to be process purposes, or possibly an attempt to avoid the issue). The discussion here is not whether to undelete or not; it is whether Gentgeen acted improperly by deleting the redirect. As I said to Gentgeen:

In [71] he denied my marking of State Route 35 (California) for speedy because "the reason given for speedy deletion is not one of the speedy deletion criteria". However, he just deleted California State Route 85 for the same reason.

Furthermore, in my case, the redirect I was trying to get deleted was a dickish "poor man's move protection", while the one he deleted had been edited due to the article being moved to multiple names before he tried to move it back. I have also been told to go to WP:RM, but past discussions have given no consensus, so the side to have a dickish action first is the de facto winner. (A current move discussion is at Talk:State Route 2 (California).)

I would like the following redirects to be deleted:

• State Route 15 (California)
• State Route 17 (California)
• State Route 35 (California)
• State Route 99 (California)
• State Route 130 (California)
• State Route 236 (California)

But as deletion policy does not allow for this, they probably will not be, in a show of double standards. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do nothing. There was consensus on where CA 85 should be from a previous vote.Gateman1997 16:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Groupthink, not consensus. I don't think you read my argument either - keep deleted is not an option. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I'm not sure what this is about exactly. As I read what you've written, it appears you believe Gentgreen has acted inconsistently in deleting one redirect, but not allowing the deletion of another, even though the reasoning is identical. As a remedy, you request deletions of the redirects you wanted deleted. You want DRV (in effect) to "make Gentgreen consistent"... is that correct?

If so, your request is backwards. DRV could undelete what Gentgreen deleted as a way of "making him consistent", but any new deletion requests need to start at RfD before coming here. As phrased, your request is out-of-order.

I should add that I have no opinion on the actions of Gentgreen. He may well be justified, or not so. If you wish to have DRV undelete something (as we could do), you would need to rephrase your request above. Xoloz 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Gentgeen proposed taking the dispute here, and so I did. This is no longer VFU but DRV, and exists to review deletions, so I can see how it fits into the scope. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true there was a name change to expand purview a bit (DRV now reviews "keep" results, too), but this is still deletion review: I take review to mean that DRV does not delete ab initio. One would go to xfD for that. Xoloz 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as is This seems in order to me. The speedy delete seems correct under G6 (housekeeping) for stuff like "reversing a redirect". Your request to remove State Route 35 (California) appears at first glance to be similar, but as that would result in a name against the guideline expressed in WP:CASH#Article_Naming_Convention it would appear that it's a contravertisal move, hence not a speedy canditate, so, while a little untidy, the actions (delete and not) appear to be consistant. (PS the talk pages on the 85 pages are still messed up) MartinRe 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment The best place to discuss this would be at WP:CASH#Article_Naming_Convention, rather than at any one particular article, as it would be expected that all state routes would follow the same format, so individual article votes will only cause confusion, especially if they contradict each other, which they currently do. One suggestion could be to post a poll on the CASH page, and post a link to it on each CA route page. That should get enough input to get the guideline sorted once and for all, and then make all the titles consistant, with the backing of the majority (I don't think consensus can be reached here, as neither are "right", but one has to be chosen) MartinRe 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The move to California State Route 85 was also controversial, as it was in the middle of a move war. Wikiprojects do not override disambiguation guidelines. This is a double standard, no more. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There was a recent vote to move this page, it was opposed 8-2, and closed as "don't move" on 6 March. You moved the page anyway on March 9, and it was moved back by Elf. You moved it again on 23 March, and it was again moved back by Gentgeen (which you are complaining about). Moving a page back to its original name when a recent vote said "don't move" is not controversial to me. Moving a page a few days after a decisive move said not to, is. Housekeeping (deleting redirects) for non-controversial moves is a speedy, for controversial moves it is not. No double standards in my view. Regards, MartinRe 19:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That vote was to California Highway 85, not State Route 85 (California). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do nothing. I am not convinced anything is broken therefore I see nothing which needs fixing. Just zis Guy you know? 00:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do nothing, or refer to community. In effect, DRV is being asked to order a speedy deletion. Admins are not obliged to delete anything, even if it makes their actions inconsistent. Since a speedy-or-not does not come to an admin following a community mandate in a deletion debate, a not-speedy is not something that DRV has ever been empowered to reverse — there is, as Xoloz points out, nothing to review since nothing was actually done. Contrast a keep/no consensus AfD where something was done - the debate was explicitly closed by an editor interpreting community consensus. If anything, an admin is within process to refuse to speedy something and so the only thing DRV can sensibly do is endorse the do-nothing decision of the admin since it can't possibly have been out-of-process. Dealing with bad unilateral decisions by admins (i.e. those which were never based on a debate) is for AN, ANI, RfC etc. -Splash^talk 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep whatever the status quo is. DRV is not requested moves, and with the history surrounding these redirects/articles/whatever, it should not be the forum to decide it. Besides, redirects are cheap. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • On the redirect point, note that the underlying reason for this request is a running dispute over precisely which page(s) should be redirects. -Splash^talk 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And I'm aware of that, but I'm addressing that whatever the outcome of that is, there is simply not a reason to delete the other redirect. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do nothing Another part of SPUI's page move warring campaign. Also I'm not sure why this is here. WP:DRV is for reviewing deletions already made, but this request is for ordering deletions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

19 March 2006

Imaginary antecedent

The following comments were left on my user Talk page regarding the deletion of this article following an AfD review on March 7th. Looking over the undeletion policy, Oneismany has grounds for this request as they say that they were unaware of the AfD happening on this day and so didn't have the opportunity to give their opinion. I was the closing admin but I express no opinion either way on this deletion.  (aeropagitica)  20:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The deletion log says that you deleted imaginary antecedent on March 12. Did you see its previous article for deletion? The result of that discussion was no consensus. Was there any discussion about deleting the article this time around? I've been trying to find any discussion on deleting the article, but can't find one. How many times can deletion be debated or performed? Oneismany 16:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I found the discussion here. I would like to request a deletion review. I am sorry I didn't contribute to the March 7 discussion, but I was unaware of it because I did not know that the previous deletion discussion could be overruled without any notice. The article is already deleted, and this is the first I knew about it. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish to submit the following considerations for the advocation of a deletion review. Firstly although the article does admittedly need to be cleaned up and peer-reviewed and provide better citations, it is arguably not 'original research'. The article cites fiction and philosophical essays as its sources and does not contribute new information from outside these sources. Secondly although the number of Google hits mentioned in the deletion discussion is low, some of those hits are articles in alternate reference materials which have copied the Wikipedia text verbatim. At least one of them quotes an old version of the article, now without any reference to the updated version. Meanwhile, the attribution in these articles is lost because the attribution was only kept at the Wikipedia article. According to the GFDL, attributions and the history of changes to a text must be preserved. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the deletion be reviewed, and the article be replaced. With more work, I am sure this article can live up to Wikipedia standards. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Very few Ghits, with Wikipedia top (generally a bad sign). Looks a lot like a protologism, lack of sources noted at previous AfD and not rectified despite assertions that this not, as it appears to be, original research. Only appears to have one active editor, also not a great indicator of scientific robustness. Just zis Guy you know? 00:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "few Ghits" argument is weak, as there are many useful and encyclopedic topics with relatively few references on the internet. Also notice that the AfD mentions 93 google links, but now there are 192, an increase of 106% from 15 days ago (during the time that is has been deleted). Oneismany 07:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Oneismany 09:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment However, the article is collecting dust in its current form, and should be rewritten (and perhaps renamed) so as to invite more input from other editors. Oneismany 12:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Reading the original AfD, I see even there a consensus (and perhaps an admission on oneismany's part) that the term is original, even if the concept isn't. Hearing that logic from keep voters is depressing, as it supports an OR claim. A thorough reading of the November debate could have justified a deletion consensus on that ground at that time. Anyway, keep deleted under WP:SNOW if nothing else. This is original research. Wikipedia is not the place for novel combinations of source information. Article creator needs to get his term published: then it will belong here. Xoloz 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In theory both of the policies, 'no original research' and 'neutral point of view,' are equally important. However, sometimes in practice one policy must take priority over the other. I argue that the top priority is NPOV. Sometimes, for example, it is necessary to introduce neutrality to discuss a topic neutrally. Observe the '[this topic] in fiction' subsections of many articles. Fiction and philosophy, as well as religion and other contentious topics represent POV themselves and therefore that must be mentioned with the subject in the interests of NPOV. Typically fiction does not say 'this is fiction', but Wikipedia allows topics from fiction, and so it is necessary to introduce those topics from this point of view in order to be neutral. Perhaps the phrase 'imaginary antecedent' is novel (and perhaps the title could be changed), but the article attempts a neutral discussion of imaginary subjects (though it could use more input from alternate editors). Oneismany 12:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Imagine that frogs were in Wikipedia, but separately listed as fish and as lizards, because 'amphibian' was a previously unpublished term. When existing phrases do not accurately describe a subject, it is silly to use the inaccurate phrases or to leave the subject out of the encyclopedia. As long as the subject is well known, I argue that such examples fit under the 'apple pie' clause. Imaginary subjects are no new thing, but to leave them out of the encyclopedia is to misrepresent their novelty. Oneismany 09:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted per JzG & Xoloz. The second nomination was a valid AfD, and a no consensus on the first nomination is, by definition, a "weak" closure, hence it can be brought up for AfD at any time and the new results would override the old ones. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete (and rename?) This article is copied verbatim in alternate secondary sources (which cite Wikipedia), but because the history of the article has been deleted along with the article, neither the attribution nor the history of changes is available to these sources. Denying this information for redistribution is a violation of the GFDL. However, if the history was available, the deletion might not violate the GFDL. (Unfortunately there is currently no place on Wikipedia for discontinued or unsupported articles. But, silly me, I didn't notice the 'history-only undeletion' option until now.) Oneismany 10:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Optionally, the article could be undeleted and renamed to 'imaginary subject,' 'imaginary object,' or 'imaginary' and its current contents rewritten as a subtopic of the broader topic. This would perhaps address the perceived obscurity of the topic. Oneismany 12:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted. An introduction of a new term is clear OR, even if it describes something already known: an new notion is a new generalization. mikka (t) 23:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. If the concept isn't WP:OR, but the name is, that's a sing that the page needs to be moved. Wikipedia being the top Google response is not a rare thing--search for almost any year (other than 1988) and you'll get Wikipedia's right at the top. At the least, temporarily undelete so that the content (whatever it was) could be merged, but really, this article ought to stay. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

18 March 2006

Template:People stub

• 10:39, 16 March 2006 . . Bucky-Convigton,
• 18:48, 16 March 2006 Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 16#Template:People stub
• 01:29, 17 March 2006 . . SPUI (redirect)
• 08:01, 17 March 2006 Grutness deleted "Template:People stub" (deliberate redundant (duplicate) stub type created by known vandal)
• 19:31, 17 March 2006 . . SPUI
• 02:58, 18 March 2006 Grutness deleted "Template:People stub" (huh? I thought I'd deleted this.)
• 03:33, 18 March 2006 Grutness protected Template:People stub (re-speedy-deleted speedily-recreated speedy deletion)

Uh... it's been protected blank, because Grutness didn't like it existing as a redirect to {{biography-stub}} {{biog-stub}} {{bio-stub}}. I thought we fixed this a while ago. Note that, in this case, the category is even Category:People stubs. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect this, obviously. It is a quite reasonable redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I'll point out that protecting a page against recreation b/c it's been recreated once is a little excessive. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Twice. Deleted through SFD; speedied when re-creation was listed for deletion at TFD, then speedied and protected when re-created again a few hours after that. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, never mind, the deletion log only appears to show two deletions though. What's with that? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirecting makes sense to me... I don't really understand the need to delete it. --W.marsh 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Chris and W.marsh. Redirect to {{bio-stub}}. —Encephalon 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Annulled. See below. —Encephalon 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• It was protected because it had been deleted after discussion at SFD. I speedied it when it was recreated - then SPUI re-created in a few minutes later. Protection seemed obvious in those circumstances. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now as a recreation of deleted content. No objection to listing on TfD SfD. SPUI should have come here when it was deleted the first time, instead of recreating it. Please also take note of the established consensus against template redirects. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Given the scheme for using "bio-" in the (very numerous) templates names for biographical stub types, and given that it's one of the few things we do manage to be consistent about, this is very much in danger of causing more confusion than it might palliate. I have no objection to stub redirects where there's most likely to be confusion, but as Aecis alludes to, there are "issues" with using them on a grand scale. (Besides, as SPUI doesn't use sorted stubs templates, and incites others not to use them either...) Alai 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. There's a consensus against template redirects? Where? I think that especially in the twisty maze of stub-sorting templates, we need all the redirects we can get. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The consensus against template redirects can be found on several places: at Miscellany for Deletion, at Stub types for Deletion, at Redirects for Deletion, at Deletion Review, at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Stub sorting, at the Village Pump and at several user talk pages. I'll see if I can find the relevant discussions in the archives tomorrow. Template redirects put an excessive burden on the servers, much more so than article redirects. That's why we need to be very reluctant in using template redirects. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:AUM, the basis for this supposed "excessive burden", is no longer policy, after one of the developers weighed in. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • AUM was part of the reasoning, but it has never been the be all and end all. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted per Alai, Aecis and Grutness. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• There are templete re-directs out the arse, last I looked. I also note that my understanding of the server burden mirrors SPUI's in that at least one dev has said it's not an issue. I'd like to hear more exposition from SPUI about the advantage of this, though.
  brenneman^{L} 00:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The point is to make it easier to get the right stub type. Whether or not this is an advantage depends on one's view of stub sorting. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Given that a stub type is, by definition, both category and template, that's exactly half right: it's making it easier to get the right category, and the wrong template. WSS's strategy is to use try to make the template names as consistent as possible, and only use duplicated or redirected templates where there's inherent variation in spelling, residual inconsistency in the existing names, etc. SPUI's apparent strategy is to use a redirects-to-articles pattern, and to advocate duplicate templates for just about any possible variation in name, abbreviation, spelling, hyphenation, etc. That's either going to mean we create a huge number of them -- multiply around 2000 templates by all the variations you can think of; or that inconsistency between them increases, and hence likelihood of getting the names of other, similar, stub types wrong. Or more likely, some combination of the two. All of the "people"/"biographical" stub types use "bio-" in their template names (and there are literally hundreds of them): this is a pattern worth being as consistent and as clear as possible about. Alai 05:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I can see the merits of that argument, but it appears that it should have been made at the TfD. So we've got an over-enthusiastic speedy deletion of something that should have been deleted followed by a recreation as a redirect that may or may not be a bad thing but that should have been brought here followed by another speedy deletion of something that doesn't appear to meet a criterion because the TfD was closed early and then a page protection because something was re-created once. Is that pretty much it? - brenneman^{L} 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • If you want to be processist about it, it should have been made at WP:SFD (unless you want to argue that it fails the stub naming guidelines so clearly as to not qualify as such). I don't know if I'd stipulate "over-enthusiastic"; what degree of enthusiasm would have been correct? After that, I start to feel the need for the odd comma, but the sequence appears to be correct, the value judgements I'm less clear about. I think "trouble-making recreation to make a WP:POINT" is worth a mention someplace in there, though. Alai 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually it should have been at WP:RFD. We went through this a while ago. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
            • No, you went through this a while ago, and it was soundly and overwhelmingly stated that stub redirects, being stub types, should go to SfD. It was discussed on SfD talk, on RfD talk, and if I'm not mistaken on the Village Pump as well. There's no need to start beating this euthanized horse again. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm sorry, I made a mistake here. Like Chris, I was unaware of the previous history of the template—thanks to whoever placed it at the top. This was headed for a delete consensus at TfD when it was speedily deleted, probably out-of-process (I know of no CSD that allows templates to be deleted because the person who created it vandalized WP in the past). SPUI re-created; it was redeleted. The arguments concerning server strain, while interesting, lead to perenially unaswered questions. Irrespective of whether or not a template redirect increases server strain, isn't the crux of the matter this: what value is there in redirecting this template? If there is net value to the encyclopedia (ie. the main space), then redirect without concern for the servers. Brion has made that much clear: if something is necessary for the well-being of the 'pedia, do it. Don't let server strain enter into your deliberations over encyclopedia policy issues. Now, the above question needs an answer, and the best place to get that answer, it seems to me, is the place where WPns with an interest in these issues sit down for a chat. Ie, SFD. So relist at SfD, please. Regards —Encephalon 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not make a mistake - a consensus to delete on TFD does not preclude a redirect. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not sure I agree, SPUI. Firstly there wasn't a consensus to delete—it was heading that way, but the thing was speedily deleted within about 13 hours of placement on TFD. Secondly, I hardly think people who've asked, overwhelmingly, for a template to be deleted would be very impressed with the suggestion that keeping and redirecting it is somehow an equivalent outcome. The issue here is plainly: what use is this template as a redirect? The more I think about it, the less it makes sense to maintain a template purely as a redirect. If there are reasons for it with this class of template, they are best weighed at the interested forum, ie SFD. —Encephalon 02:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or relist or whatever the good one is. Ashibaka tock 05:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, that doesn't quite narrow things down very much, Ashibaka. :-) —Encephalon 02:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, invite SPUI to find something productive to do. For a change. Just zis Guy you know? 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, I suppose. Things shouldn't be speedied without a good reason. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Aajonus Vonderplanitz

The above article, started by myself, was deleted by User:JzG without prior warning or discussion. In the deletion review I discovered that someone had started the article before some time ago, and then had been deleted later. The article is about a verifiable individual who is also a published author, so I see no grounds for such deletion, especially since I was still continuing work on the article and preparing to add sources (and I had already added three web links). I request that the deletion be reviewed and that the article be undeleted if possible. SouthernComfort 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify, this was first deleted as the result of this AFD discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal Diet. It was deleted on 3 Feb 06. You recreated the article today (17 March). JzG speedy-deleted it as a re-creation of previously deleted content. Comparing the two versions, I do not suspect that you simply reposted the deleted content but I also see no evidence yet to justify overturning the prior deletion decision, particularly not so soon after the first decision was just made. Rossami (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Vonderplanitz gets 32,400 Google hits [72] and he is a published author, and regardless of whether one considers him a "diet guru" or what have you, he is a notable figure, particularly in the raw food movement. For others to claim that he is not "notable" of inclusion in WP is bizarre considering that this is simply their POV, especially considering that there are many other individuals with articles on WP who many might not consider "notable." My only concern is that information not be censored about diets and figures that others may not agree with or consider fringe (which again, would be their POV). Best regards, SouthernComfort 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: I did actually compare the new article with the deleted one, in my view they were substantially similar, and the new article did not make new claims of notability. But it was only a quick check, mostly it was a new article appearing straight on my watchlist, which means new content at deleted site. So I advised SouthernComfort to bring it here. Last time round I seem to recall that someone wanted the content rescued to their user space for rework, I don't believe that has happened yet. Just zis Guy you know? 18:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• I also don't see a reason for an article on the guy. Google hits don't mean much. If there were substantial third party verifiable evidence of his importance I'd be listening. That we may have articles on other people we don't need isn't a reason to have more. - Taxman ^Talk 15:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• What new evidence of substance is presented over and above that which was discussed at the recent AfD? Is there evidence of significant non-promotional coverage? Just zis Guy you know? 17:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Non-promotional coverage"? The basic gist that I got out of the AfD was that some editors felt that the article was too promotional or an advertisement or whatever - as I have stated, I have never seen that previous article so I cannot comment. The article that I had started was not promotional in any shape or form, nor did I have any intention to start that sort of article - I certainly hope no one is suggesting that I have that sort of intention. Here are two "third-party" links regarding Vonderplanitz, one from the L.A. Weekly [73] and one from the L.A. Times [74].

Again, I'm not sure why Taxman is questioning his "importance," which is totally subjective? It's a strange thing to say because there are so many articles on WP for various individuals of varying degrees of notability and reknown - and certainly not all of them are as famous as the President or Bill Gates, but they still deserve an article. I don't agree with these deletionist ideas. As long as an article adheres to NPOV and actually contains substance, what is the problem? Just because the guy is a "diet guru" (of an arguably "fringe" diet), we should not have an article for him on WP - come on, it's an interesting subject. =) SouthernComfort 19:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me will know that I am notable enough to have my own article. The problem is that not enough Wikipedians know me, know about me, or care about an article's contents and so it would be hard to ensure the article is maintainted to Wikipedian ideals of accuracy and independence. I have hundreds of articles about me. This problem will go away as Wikipedia gains readers and as I gain fame. The question I have about your guy is: Are there enough independent articles to ensure NPOV and accuracy can be independently verified, and are enough people interested to ensure continuing accuracy? Stephen B Streater 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Undelete. The person is clearly notable, from the information given. There remain people on these boards who want to keep everything "new-agey" or occultic off of Wikipedia, and these people are simply pushing their own POV. Consider the people who tried to delete Gene Ray, Dogon or John Titor (including Egil). Let's write a good article on this guy and be proud that a complete Wikipedia includes articles on topics such as this. Wiwaxia 04:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board, it's an encyclopaedia. It exisst to document what is already known and significant. Just zis Guy you know? 00:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Relist (or basically, Undelete). Why is AV not being considered a "real" person of note in the raw food arena? Five minutes online reveals:

• He is the author of two books listed at Amazon.com.
• The 2001 National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Report report, "Genetically Modified Food and the Consumer", published on a Corenell U (cornell.edu) site, refers to him as. "Proclaimed nutritionist Aajonus Vonderplanitz and a raw-milk farmer" and goes on to quote him and cite his work.
• Spin (magazine) magazine mentions him in a Feb-1999 article, Gastronauts Part 2.
• He was the subject of a feature segment on Episode #314 (25-Sep-2002) of Ripley's Believe It or Not prime time hit US TV show.

From the AfD comments ("snake oil" and the like), there does seem to be a knee-jerk "no crackpots" reaction not based on any research. --Tsavage 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the books: I checked Amazon and they are published by "Carnelian Bay", but I can't find a publisher of that name. Maybe the fact that one of them is bound in "plastic comb" explains this? Also funny you should mention Google Scholar: there appear to be no citations to Vonderplanitz, suggesitg that the scientific community does not consider his work significant. But this is not about the subject, it's about reviewing the process. Which was valid, and no new data and no reliable secondary sources have been presented. Just zis Guy you know? 00:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with plastic comb publishing? Is there a bookbinding standard? I mean, it's kinda like saying, "what about an encyclopedia written entirely by anonymous editors?" I think here, if it's good enough for the world's biggest bookseller...: "Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com." By sales rank, it roughly matches or outsells most various editions of the Atkins Diet, the Scarsdale Diet, and the King James Bible...

The publisher is Carnelian Bay Castle Press, LLC, quite easy to find. Is there some sort of restriction on independent publishers, like, corporate multinationals only?

Process: Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding these: "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.", "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."

Why the derisive tone? Raw food is an interesting area. AV may be a crackpot or charlatan or both, but that is not established. What is is that millions of people have heard of him (what if a Ripley's viewer wanted to check out more about him?), he has been noted in mainstream media, he is notable enough to be quoted in at least one scholarly report, he has a body of work including a diet plan that people follow ("Mann is one of 3,000 Southern Californian devotees of the 53-year-old Vonderplanitz," LA Weekly 16-Mar-2001...I don't understand why should WP readers be prohbited from learning about him? And, IMO, Obscure content isn't harmful... --Tsavage 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, since raw food is a rather established concept (1.86 million hits on exact phrase "raw food", 572,000 on exact phrase "raw food diet"), with a fairly substantial article in WP, are we not to mention AV in that article? And if he is allowed to be mentioned, can we not wikilink his name? In fact, there is already a paragraph on him in raw food diet, so I wikilinked it, and it now points to... A quick, common sense look at the basic Web-available material should have cleared this up a couple of processes ago... --Tsavage 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have an article on raw food diet. The existence of a concept does not oblige us to carry an article on every crank theorist associated with it. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How exactly have you determined that AV is a crank? You sound like judge and jury here, and this seems more like a virtual tar and feathering. Have you researched this guy? With half the population getting cancer, gazillions of people on psychiatric drugs, everything from asthma to Alzheimer's on the sharp, unexplained increase, you'd think that just about any and all nutritional and health-oriented information and alternatives would be of at least passing educational interest and fit encyclopedic fare for a compendium of all knowledge. We're featuring articles on individual pop songs and video game characters, and you want to eliminate raw foodists? Yikes. --Tsavage 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well said and I completely agree. We have three editors now (myself included) who believe that the article should be undeleted - why hasn't this been done already? SouthernComfort 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is absurd. In what way is following up the references for a published author and finding them to be, well, shall we say, not in the same league as Joyce, "tarring and feathering"? Your statement linking raw food diets to cancer indicates that you have an agenda here; what is my agenda supposed to be, and why? Just zis Guy you know? 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda. I don't know AV. I did do some quick research which convinced me he is of some encyclopedic interest. I didn't link raw food diets to cancer, I attempted to place editorial decisionmaking in a real-world context, i.e. the book is so far from closed on "medecine", "nutrition", "health care", that we shouldn't be limiting info on non-mainstream approaches. We shouldn't forget that the "mother of all encyclopedias" kinda has an obligation to cover the nooks and crannies and give everything a fair shake. Deleting high school garage bands and brand new shareware programs or whatever from WP is one thing, trying to remove articles based on "he's a crank" (and NOTHING more has been presented here or in the AfD) seems editorially shortsighted and wrong-spirited. IMHO. --Tsavage 04:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Somewhat to my surprise, that last argument has convinced me. Vonderplanitz may be relatively non-notable, but an article about him has some merit that I find utterly lacking in much of the popculturecruft here. No, I'm not advocating a race to the bottom--I just think this article deserves a place in the marketplace of ideas. Hopefully it will improve and acquire some better references though. · rodii · 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. This has already failed AFD once. Rather than review the speedy deletion, the original author could have contested the original deletion debate. However, the speedy deletion is valid as the recreation of AFD'd material is a valid candidate. --DDG 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What "recreation"? I didn't recreate anything - I started a new article. I had nothing to do with the previously deleted version of which I had no knowledge of. So they were two different articles started by two different editors. Nothing was recreated, as I've stated a number of times before. SouthernComfort 02:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The new article was an article on a deleted subject. Since both were very short (there being little if any verifiable biographical detail with which to expand it, apparently), the two were simlar enough to be called a repost. Just zis Guy you know? 09:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you really didn't give me much of a chance to expand the article, did you? Or even a fair warning would have been nice, that you would list the article for deletion if not expanded with "verifiable" data. On the other hand, there's another editor (Taxman) who claims that "verifiability" isn't an issue here, that the man simply isn't worthy enough to have a WP article. This is absurd. This article should have been undeleted by now - if you want to relist it on AfD, that's fine with me. The most likely outcome this time would be "no consensus," thus allowing the article to survive, and rightly so. SouthernComfort 06:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. No new convincing reasons for the article to exist. mikka (t) 23:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• FYI, there are no old convincing reasons, or substantive reasoning at all, for the original deletion, which was of "Primal Diet", with AV rolled in as a bonus delete. --Tsavage 00:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist. Article contents seem valid, "Aajonus Vonderplanitz" gets over 20 thousand Google hits. JIP | Talk 10:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist per JIP. JoshuaZ 17:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Just zis Guy you know. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is unbelievable. What are people voting on? The original AfD, which was a two-for-one with AV rolled into Primal diat, was 8-5 for deletion (with two "weak deletes"), and the ONLY attempts at providing reasons for deletion were:

• "snake oil. User has no contributions on other subjects" Don't like the diet (and the editor is a "suspect" as well)?
• "infomercial for fad diet." followed up with a later comment "Yeah, you get E Coli from uncooked pork and then you puke your guts out, for a loss of twelve lbs in only four gut-wrenching days and nights." This IS based on NOT LIKING THE DIET!
• "Ah yes, the old australopithecine weight reduction program Ah, so you don't like the diet...?!?!?!

Meanwhile, if the arguments and press and whatnot above aren't enough, AV would seem to pass THREE of the tests in Wikipedia:Notability (people):

• Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events Clearly from the press and Ripley's (a dedicated segment reaching millions), his "raw food eating" has gained him newsworthiness and notoriety at least, and over a period of years.
• Google test" 27,000 hits is certainly not insignificant for someone supposed to be obscure to the point of deletion
• Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more It's reasonable to assume, with his two books alone at Amazon, that he has an audience of 5K...

These are WP guideline tests, and "passing" any ONE is supposed to be a reasonable indication of notability. I don't understand what people are arguing about here. Can articles be deleted by a narrow margin vote, just because half a dozen people decide that they simply DON'T LIKE THEM, for no real reason except...instinct? Gut reaction? I guess so... --Tsavage 04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

17 March 2006

Gilles Trehin

• Deleted as "CSD A7" (ie. speedy deletion as unnatable) (Deletion log). I do not know if this page is acceptable as an outside source - Skysmith 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list at AfD The source is not unimpeachable, being somewhat autobiographical; it is, however, proof enough of a claim to notability. Debate at AfD is warranted. Xoloz 22:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A non-notable bio is certainly A7 material; this is blatant self-promotion going against WP:NOT. Harro5 02:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not Trehin, if that's what you are suggesting - Skysmith 11:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, no obvious claim to notability. Around 600 Ghits, far fewer than I get. Just zis Guy you know? 18:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse appears to have no claim to notability whatsoever - and I don't think creating an "imaginary city" counts (was it popular? Relevant to society in some way?). WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I will say that acedemically it could be important for the savant-related articles - but even then you could maybe write two sentences max because there really isn't that much real information yet there in the first place. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When listed for SD it contained no other claim to notability than that the guy had built an imaginary city in his head. And frankly, who hasn't? It takes a bit of stubbornness to keep doing it for years in a single continuity, but that also is not really notable. Henning Makholm 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Even that does not really mark him out from other Aspies. It kind of goes with the territory. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on Gilles Trehin (correctly Gilles Tréhin).This is an interesting case. The subject is a Frenchman diagnosed at age 8 (c.1982) with autism. At that time or later, it was also realized that he had savant syndrome (the two are not the same, although very closely associated). Savant syndrome is really quite rare: only about 10% of autistic persons (and less than one percent of all mentally retarded people) are, also, savants. There is a long tradition of medical writing on savant syndrome, in both the professional and lay literature. More generally, patients with interesting or noteworthy attributes, and/or who have been the subject of extensive research, are often written up (usually pseudonymously); in certain cases where there is a large literature, these writings may easily serve as good sources for writing a perfectly acceptable encyclopedia entry.

  The important question here is whether such sources exist for Mr. Tréhin. Unfortunately, there are no papers in the NCBI online database that contain the word "Urville" (the name of the richly imagined metropolis Trehin has devoted his artistic genius to portraying); nor does anyone seem to have written about him by name. One physician who appears to have had an association with Trehin, perhaps as a consultant when Trehin lived in America, is Darold Treffert MD, an expert on savant syndrome. Treffert has no indexed publications on Trehin that I can see.

  There appear to be three candidate sources, however.

1. The autobiographical account at http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/gilles.cfm
2. the personal website http://urville.com, and
3. two pages at Jessica Kingsley Publishers (http://www.jkp.com/catalogue/book.php/isbn/9781843104193 and http://www.jkp.com/catalogue/author.php/id/1412)

The first two are accounts by the subject. The personal homepage in particular is a poor source for an encyclopedia article, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources (there are narrow, limited uses for which personal pages, blogs etc can serve as sources, in my opinion, but that's another discussion for some other time). The account at http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/gilles.cfm has a subtly different status: it is published by the Wisconsin Medical Society, and therefore bears its imprimatur. Nevertheless, it is a telling of the story by the subject himself: it contains no commentary on the subject by a third party, no disinterested observation and description, no analysis, no contextualizing of the patient's disorder. It is a naked autobiographical account—the word of the subject.

The final source is the only one with some independence. Turns out Tréhin is going to have a book published; it will contain images of his drawings, and notes on his imagined cultural and social history of Urville. The book is due out this year.

So, where does this leave us? The fundamental questions to answer when deciding whether we should have a page on a subject are the usual ones: Has the subject been studied and/or reported on to a sufficient degree such that there exist independent works, in reputable publications, devoted to it? Is it possible, given the available primary/secondary/tertiary sources on the subject, to write an encyclopedic entry on it? Is the subject of such importance, significance or notability that not having a page on it would be distinctly suboptimal for an encyclopedia?

IMO we can't yet write an encyclopedia entry on this gentleman. There is only one independent source—the publisher's page. And that source is really not on Tréhin; it's on his upcoming book. A notice of publication cannot serve as the backbone source for an article on a person—it tells us little of a person's life, and is not designed or intended to do so. No person other than Tréhin himself has written about Tréhin—there is no better indication that the source requirements for an encyclopedic entry can't as yet be met. It is possible that it will be met in future—if his book is a success for example, people may start to report or write on him. —Encephalon 20:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on speedy deletion under A7. It may be clear from the preceding that something here isn't quite right. The place for this kind of talk is really AFD. The question of whether Tréhin deserves an entry is not straightforward, and therefore needs deliberation in a forum of Wikipedians who can hopefully come to a consensus on the issue after a few days. Now, I have not the slightest doubt that the good administrator who SD'd this did so in the best of faith. A7 has been difficult for a long time (see for example), and will continue to be so because we cannot define "notability" in a way that will make it completely unambiguous for the purposes of a speedy. The safest bar is therefore a pretty low one—you speedy under A7 only when there's no doubt ("Joe Smith is 10 and likes to play chess with his dad. He goes to school at XYZ. He also plays [computer game] with his friends.") Xolox has the right instinct here, as usual. —Encephalon 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm personally hoping that A7 can be completely encompassed within the PROD guidelines when we certify that PROD is here to stay, but that's for over there and not here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that in reality this is basically a clear A7, as the only thing here that asserts notability is that he is a autistic savant, which, well, isn't really an assertion to notability at all. Plus the whole thing is most likely vanity and SPAM for an upcoming book to boot. Oh, and the 10% figure for autistic people is silly and only something you'd find on wikipedia (believe me, I've removed that figure countless times from the autism articles and its never once been sourced...) :). Now if he had a successful book, heck even a book at all, this would probably be AfD material... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The encyclopediability of a page on a savant with a less common savant skill, mention on a medical society website, an upcoming book, and possible description in the medical literature is better discussed in AFD, not deleted by one admin IMHO. I wonder if the admin searched the literature before deleting. Would an early version of Patient HM also have qualified as a speedy, if mention wasn't made of Milner's research? I'm not saying this page should be kept, and I've already explained why at length. I'm saying that the decision to keep or delete would probably be better made via AFD. I do understand the constraints that we work under, of course, as well as the different interpretations of A7.

      Wrt vanity, yes, it's possible that the article was begun by someone with a strong conflict of interest. However, vanity is not a reason for deletion (see WP:VANITY).

      There has been a source for the 10% figure for the last 30 years, RN. See Rimland, B. (1978). Savant capabilities of autistic children and their cognitive implications. In G. Serban (Ed.), Cognitive defects in the development of mental illness (pp. 43–65). New York: Brunner-Mazel. Rimland studied 5400 children with autism, of which 531 (9.8%) were found to be savants. There were problems with the study, and there are few epidemiologic studies on savant syndrome and its prevalence among those with autistic spectrum disorder (very much risen in incidence, now); the validity of the figure is therefore not clear, but it is among the very few data we have on the question. Irrespective of the precise figure, the point is that savant syndrome is rare. Kind regards —Encephalon 23:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

      • Well said. And really, my writing may seem forceful at times but usually I am on the edge of such things. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The article on Urville has been overwhelmingly deleted in a recently closed AfD vote. Harro5 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As I said on the Urville AFD, "He has a book (ISBN 1843104199). Channel 4 has a short documentary on him available here. He in mentioned in this article form Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. I'm not exactly disagreeing with the SD of the article though, as it did not profess any notability at all." I haven't read the peer-reviewed journal article, but it does mention him. Is that enough to be notable? I think it is borderline on the side of yes. kotepho 19:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

12 March 2006

Userboxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There is an interesting debate to be had about the utility and propriety of cross-space redirects of this kind, given the usual allowance for WP: redirects. Undelete/list at RfD, though (for once) I don't think Mr. Sidaway's speedy deletion was particularly egregious; it is something a could imagine a normal responsible administrator doing. Xoloz 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This already went through RfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Either redirect or short description with links. Then protect if necessary. It will make it much easier to find the userbox page(s). --Singkong2005 09:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure why it was deleted rather than just altered to point to WP:UBX (use of WP: redirects being common practice), but it might be because redirecting to WP:UBX would cause a double redirect. Right now, incidentally, Userboxes is a broken redirect. It points to Userbox which is an empty, protected page. I'm generally against cross-namespace redirects. --kingboyk 10:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted all cross-space redirects should start with WP: prefix. --Doc ^ask? 11:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Then why have you all still not deleted ArbCom, Disambiguation, NPOV, or any of the other cross-space redirects? I find it impossible to continue to assume good faith considering the strong anti-userbox stance of most of the users voting "delete" here. This is an obvious witchhunt. -Silence 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Because I haven't deleted anything at all, but I will consistantly vote to delete all cross-space redirects that don't begin with WP, whether they regard userboxes or not. If you find it impossible to assume good faith, then please leave this project, because assuming good faith is pretty core to it. --Doc ^ask? 23:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. Tony's protestations of serendipity aside, I see no difference between Userbox/Userboxes and Disambiguation, CotW, NPOV, etc. Until someone can come up with a reasonable candidate for an article here, it's a harmless redirect (and I came down on the side against most of the Userboxen). -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this harmless redirect please Yuckfoo 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Tony and Doc. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remarks:
  1. Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect states that a redirect is deletable when

     It is a cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace.

  2. Mildly amusingly, the very same section, in keeping with the old WP instinct not to have most rules set down in very hard stone, avers

     (...avoid deleting redirects if) someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

  3. The first rule is essentially not observed: the WP: style shortcuts are each and all cross-space redirects from the main space to the Wikipedia space. But further, as Haukur and Silence point out, the WP: style redirects are not the only cross-space redirects. I looked for some historical precedent on this type of redirect, and found Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Precedents#Should redirects to other spaces be kept?, which, if nothing else, honestly displays the truth that we have no solid ground to tread on here, but have to decide on an individual basis by discussion in the appropriate forum.
  4. Both Userbox and Userboxes were nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, and closed by freakofnurture on March 7—verdict delete. So the folks who've been speedying this as a recreation have not been wrong to do so. I'm not especially convinced by the RfDs, however: the few editors who asked for deletes said "Delete all cross-namespace redirects" which is both inappropriate and bereft of any reasoning. Therefore I don't see a basis for the close.
  5. In my opinion, using the precedents as a guide, the (non-WP:) cross-space redirects that we keep are those to highly-used WPspace pages, especially those known by a particular catch phrase or term (eg. NPOV, Wikipedia is not paper, ArbCom). I don't see why Userboxes is any different, especially in the light of recent events (the page will have to watched very closely to ensure it is not put to stupid uses, but this goes for most things on WP). Personally I would prefer that the article space be kept entirely free of non-WP: cross-space redirects for structural reasons, but as such a thing is unlikely to come to pass any time soon, leaving such redirects in place where they are useful does not appear to me unreasonable. —Encephalon 04:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Whilst I respect the views of all of those expressed above who would wish to keep this page delted I think it is simply lunacy. When people use Wikipedia they do not want to have to remember whether this page comes under official Wiki policy etc. they simply want to get to their page. I think a disambiguation page case could be made, as there should be a link at least to WP:UBX. The argument that has been put above about the other execptions to a Wikipedia rule should either be changed in line with the policy applied to the userbox page (which I think seems very silly line to go down, as Wikipedia should be easy to use, and not rely on inflexible policies, when the key factor should be ease of usability). I think that the deltion of the page sets a dangerous precednet, and in the end the whole page should be reverted page to its original state. --Wisden17 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete; a few cross-space redirects are okay. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

1. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Category:Roman Catholic actors, speedy deletion reversed; relisted for further consideration at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31#Category:Roman_Catholic_actors. March 31 2006
5. Politics of Imperial China kept deleted. 2006 March 31
6. Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) restored. 2006 March 30
7. Peter_Fletcher kept deleted. 2006 March 30
8. 4000 (band) kept deleted. 2006 March 30
9. Charles James Abbott kept deleted. 2006 March 30
10. Gas station restroom userfied and kept deleted. 2006 March 30
11. OBJECTIVE:_Christian_Ministries speedy deletion reverted by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 13:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Stephen Glicker deletion closure endored, kept deleted. 17:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Kat Desktop Search Environment deletion overturned, undeleted, relisting is optional. 17:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
14. House humping deletion closure endorsed, kept deleted. 17:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
15. United Hardware speedy overturned, sent to AfD. 17:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Arc Flashlights deletion endorsed, without prejudice to improved recreation. 17:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Colignatus deletion endorsed. 17:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Arthur Lichte speedy undeleted as clear misunderstanding. 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Petrodollar warfare overturned and undeleted. 22:40, March 17, 2006 (UTC)
20. Michael Crook keep endorsed. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Azure Sheep deletion endorsed. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Samurang undel'd, sent back to afd. 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)