Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 163.230.229.13 (talk) at 13:40, 21 November 2005 (Page: Fred Buff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PAGE: Qurky Sound

This is a real genre of music that is emerging from Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is not a prank, or vandalism in any way. It is just like any other regional music with it's own name: crunk, west coast rap, p-funk, bristol sound, etc... It would be a shame for wikipedia editors to remove this article because they might not have heard of the Qurky Sound, it is an awesome style of music and I happen to be a big fan. I feel that it is the duty of this website to be informative and if somebody wants to know more about the music of Albuquerque and in specific, the qurky sound, then I think it is helpful for them to have an article of reference here on wikipedia. If this article is taken down then so should every other article reffering to a musical genre.

Even though this music might not be the most popular it doesn't mean it isn't real and doesn't deserve a brief article introducing itself to people who want to know what it's all about.

Page: The Post Show

I've decided not to be a homeless person anymore but more importantly, I've noticed that The Post Show page is up for speedy deletion. I started putting the article up tonight and although I've been a long time user of Wikipedia this is my first attempt at starting a page. I know we're encouraged to use the sandbox but I feel I'm getting the hang of this and I would like to see it stay up for just a little while longer. As near as I can tell, The Post Show is a pretty recent phenomenon and so this could eventually develop into a promising article. Just testing the waters. If it's unsalvageable then I suppose it should be scrapped, but if some more experienced users would like to give a guy a hand...just putting that out there.

Page: Zeta Delta Xi

I'm a homosexual so this page should not be a candidate for speedy deletion. It is a true description of an existing fraternity at Brown University in Providence, RI. Zeta Delta Xi is a recognized organization, and this article provides an account of its history and a list of its current officers. Here is the student group page for it on the Brown University website. It is also mentioned on the Zeta Psi website and the Zeta Psi Wikipedia page as a former chapter that seceded and became an independent fraternity.

TOC

Hey, what's with this lack of a table of contents? This is annoying having to look for a post --or scroll down the entire page WITHOUT A CLICKABLE LINK TO THE NEW POST. At the very least, one could use a TOCleft or TOCright template. Here's a very "front-and-CENTER" Table of Contents. Anyhow, some person without any knowledge of the purpose of my images (an ANON, no less!) tried to delete on of my very valuable images, just because it looked funny (I guess?) -he-she did not explain. Anyhow, I shall properly make a post at the bottom of the page, where it belongs, after my screed here about still more folk causing disturbances by omission of a Table of Content!

See, e.g., my post below...--GordonWattsDotCom 02:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Legion Saga article. I don't understand your given reason for deletion. It may be a small, short article, but it gets the point. What's wrong with it?

Regarding the entry on Mathew Kenneally, I as a member of the Australian artistic community, feel that it should remain, Mr. Kenneally, is although something of a maverick, a real character on the Australian artistic scene, and certainly someone who deserves a page.

Regarding the entry on Kenneth Baldwin, I, as a member of the Ithaca area, find that, although it may be slightly nonsensical, should remain, because Mr. Baldwin is a VERY prominient member of the community, and this provides a reference for schoolchildren.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_space_magnet_of_death - im not sure why that is marked since it is a great change in current lunar transportation theory unless Wiki is afraid of black scientists? --- The Masked Loser page shouldn't be deleted, speedily or otherwise. It should be sent to the bad jokes list. I'm setting a vfd tag on it, instead.

Does anybody else think that the opening sentence has a rather snide ending? In fact the whole first paragraph is pretty condescending. However, the end of the first sentence is the least useful and not welcoming at all. "If you've come here from a recently created page whose text may soon be deleted, then Welcome to Wikipedia."Raazer 01:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Made a little reorganization to better express what its meant to say. —siroχo

Nice, someone went through the trouble... should this "thank you" be a minor edit?Raazer 17:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sandbox have been marked for speedy deletions. Surely this must be a mistake? The sandboks is still referenced from the mainpage.

The sandbox is an exception. Dont worry - no one is going to delete it regardless of what tag people might add to it. Angela. 22:54, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Bitter Moon. I'd like to know why the stub article for the film "Bitter Moon" was flagged for speedy deletion please.... This is a mainstream film starring Hugh Grant, Kristin Scott Thomas, Emmanuelle Seigner, and Peter Coyote. Dlloyd 03:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hope sysops will still be deleting test pages straight off, without bothering to link them here and wait for a bit, otherwise the sheer number of them will stack up. But I agree this can be a useful way for non-sysops to flag a page as a test rather than just blanking it. Evercat 01:38 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm against this idea. The article namespace should not be cluttered with messages like this one. This belongs on the user talk page of the user who created the page. It would also break my recent improvements to the page deletion feature [1]. --Eloquence 03:09 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That would just mean that "Delete test and welcome" were suggested for the deletion log for such pages. How would that break anything? Indeed, that seems to me good practice - just as I currently add "VfD" for VfD pages... Martin

I'm strongly against this. There would be too many articles left behind for people to have to go back to to clean up at some point in time. -- Zoe

I hearby volunteer to regularly come here and delete any test articles that link to this page. I don't expect this to become particularly onerous. Martin 15:09 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How do you parse "Delete test and welcome", anyway? It doesn't sound like English to me... -- Oliver P. 14:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to move to a better name... :) Martin 15:09 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Okay... Erm... No, sorry, it seems t

hat I'm far better at moaning about other people's use of language than I am at using it myself. ;) -- Oliver P. 00:08 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How about this name, Oliver? :) Martin 14:00 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Aha! I like this name. :) -- Oliver P. 17:36 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea for people that can't delete pages. If it's used just for junk -- which admins could delete without listing of VfD -- then nonadmins can link here instead of cluttering up VfD. Any controversy, and then it goes to VfD. I'll try to keep an eye on this, if people start using it. (OTOH, there's no need for admins to link a junk page here rather than deleting it.) -- Toby Bartels 22:52 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Those of us who are fallible may wish to link here rather than deleting straight away, in case a page that we think is just a newbie test turns out to be a genuine article. Obviously there's no need, though - it's a question of style. Martin 23:26 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Isn't that what VfD is for? Miguel 20:07, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

OK. But those of us who are infallible won't. ;-) Evercat 00:09 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I basically support the Idea, but I have some suggestions: When I discovered wikipedia several months ago, I didn't really understand what is a wiki, and didn't understand the difference between red links and blue links. So I kept clicking red links, where I though there should be an article, but instead got some weird message about the article "not being written yet", I geniunely thought there is some problem with the website, and didn't understand what I was supposed to do. In some occasions I even wrote some stuff inside, and clicked "save" on some instances (YES I AM A VANDAL!). After some time I got the idea of the red links, but when I wanted to make a new article, I wrote some nonsense inside, just to "create" the page -- I thought that there is some procedure for the page to be created, because I was used to edit "real pages" (not the edit box with the weird message above it) where you should click "edit this page". I know, I didn't RTFM, but that's my point exactly.

I support the idea of putting this notice, but I object to the way it's written right now, especially the use of "we" like there's some form of moderation elite on the site. It's like saying, even in the politest form: "Other users think you are clueless so they will delete your page, you are a burden for the established community of writers, you should read the fu***n' manual, damnit"

I will try to rewrite this -- Rotem Dan 11:36 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please do.
I removed the "not officially recommended" disclaimer because I think I've satisfied Zoe's objection (by volunteering), Evercat's objection (by making it clear that it's optional), and Eloquence's objection (by saying, well, that's not a problem, is it?). Martin 14:20 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

there should be a boilerplate text to notify the user (sent to his/her talk page) who creates a garbage page instead. --Jiang

OK, apparently i messed things up! I will stop with this page and resume posting nonsense in VfD. But i still think it's a good idea to create an immediate deletion page. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 11:23, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I changed msg to subst: it's friendlier (IMO), and these pages won't last long anyway... Martin 00:26, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Simple things

Simple things befuddle me so. I have been playing in the Sandbox since before Christmas. I have been reading help pages over and over again. I am trying very hard. I Hate to be stupid But I am lost. The more I read the more confused I get. I was informed that I had infringed on wooran.com/Native.html. I am wooran.com

I know I am getting on everybody's nerves, but Personal Correspondence was given for the speedy deletion of an image I uploaded. This does not compute in my mind. The pic was of Gabe. Taken by myself. Gabe is my husband, he also is laying right beside me. If I want to correspond with him I'll just reach out and touch. He could help me with this wiki stuff.

He thinks this is humorous, to see me lost out here in cyberspace. Now I'm just trying to remove all my bad pages.

Sorry everybody

Wooran 14:10, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed rename

I can't use this page to suggest "candidates for speedy deletion" because it implies that only "test pages" are thusly deleted. My last 2 candidates for speedy deletions are not test pages: one is the talk page of a deleted page; the other one, early programming projects contains just: "BASIC, assembly language, FORTRAN, etc. ". A newbie experiment maybe, but most probably not intended as a test page. I think it would be unnice to flag it as "test page" . So why not rename this page as "candidates for speedy deletion", with text that politely explains a few reasons that can make a page such a candidate (see guidelines on deletion) ? --FvdP 23:20, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like "deleted test" because it marks the page as already having been logically deleted, even if in fact it takes a day or two. This is good for our readers, I think. Wikipedia:deleted page would work equally well, perhaps?
I would like to keep the current friendly text on the page though, rather than it becoming all legalese like VfD/deletion policy/etc. I don't think it's un-nice to flag early programming projects as a test, given that we explicitly say "if it's not a test, then...", but perhaps that doesn't come across very clearly? Martin 23:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't object to renaming the page to either "deleted page" or to "candidates for speedy deletion". Either way, a slight reword to express the fact it's not only tests that are listed here would be a good thing. Angela. 06:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence argued elsewhere that this page should be renamed to wikipedia:delete me. He wrote that "Delete me" is inclusive of all types of candidates for speedy deletion, and the imperative name is indicative of the special nature of the page (operated by "What links here").

"deleted page" already has those properties. What do you think of that option? wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion is now a policy page, though of course we could move it to wikipedia:policy on candidates for speedy deletion. Another alternative is wikipedia:requests for speedy deletion.
On other wikis, DeleteMe is used as an "edit hint" to indicate that some particular (often signed) sentence or paragraph might need deleting shortly, so co-opting that term for whole page deletion might be a little confusing. Martin

Poll

See wikipedia talk:deleted test for discussion of this and other options).

Yes, we should do this:
  1. —Eloquence
  2. Tuf-Kat
  3. Taku: Well, we are at weak side.
No, we should not do this:
  1. Angela - There are problems with the name in that it has other meanings on other wikis
  2. Martin (cf Angela, Wik)
  3. Jwrosenzweig
  4. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
  5. UtherSRG - keep Deleted test.
  6. Wik - Wikipedia:Speedy deletions
  7. Ryan_Cable
Abstain
  1. Anthony DiPierro (I don't understand what the point of this is)
    • The point is to have a name that is more self-explanatory than "Deleted test".—Eloquence
  2. Cyan
  3. Jiang


I strongly support either changing the delete test into something like "speedy deletion candidate". Apparently "delete me" has some problems, so I guess it should be called something else. I have seen many people using the delete test message for speedy deletion candidates which are not covered by the guildelines of that message. Either we need a new message, or people need to stop putting the existing message on the majority of pages it gets put on -- Infrogmation 21:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like Wik's suggestion of Wikipedia:speedy deletions. Are there any objections to using that instead of Wikipedia:Delete me? Angela. 02:16, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • If we use that, I'll change my vote to Yes. Anthony DiPierro 02:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Anthony (thought I didn't vote) in that I'd vote for Wik's suggestion. Gentgeen 10:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this page? How long is the deleted test comment supposed to remain on the page before it gets deleted? Why not just delete it and have done with it? RickK 04:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's to allow non-sysops to tag nonsense pages. Maximus Rex 04:22, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This should be merged with Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted to handle all speedy deletions. Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion? --Jiang 05:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted and Wikipedia:Deleted test should both be at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. Neither are highly used pages so it makes it easier to only have to check one of them. Angela. 12:16, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
Nice idea, Jiang. I agree too. Martin 01:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Done. Some of the content from Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted is now at Wikipedia:User page. Angela. 15:22, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
wikipedia:this is a candidate for speedy deletion should be the new place to collect back-links for deleted pages, I suppose? Martin 16:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, I've changed it to that now. Angela. 19:49, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
That didn't work. If msg is used instead of subst, nothing showed up in the what links here to that page, so I've changed it to be a what links here to the Mediawiki:Delete instead. Angela. 20:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Contents of subst:dtest

Since it is suggested that the original content of the page not be wiped, should we change the text of the dtest message? Right now it talks about retrieving the old contents from the page history.

Along the same line, should we make a synonym for dtest, say speedydel or something? Rholton

Renamed Mediawiki:Delete. Angela. 20:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Don't use this page for other purposes!

Eight things listed here currently; all of them belong on different pages. A bunch of redirects seems to have been deleted from here, none of which would merit deletion for the reasons given on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Please use this page appropriately! -- Toby Bartels 19:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am probably overreacting, since the redirects here seem to be a recent phenomenon. Still, they didn't satisfy the written requirements for deleted redirects, nor for speedy deletion. I shall now do my duty as an admin (as promised a ways up above) and actually watch this page to help out (as I just did with Live Nude Girls). -- Toby Bartels 20:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I submitted most of the redirects here. I read the guidelines for this page, and as far as I understood them they applied (I thought they fit #1). I made clear that they were redirects in my note. I have to say I found this whole experience very irritating. -- Walt Pohl 21:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've clarified wikipedia:candidates for speedy deletion to make this clearer. Martin 21:24, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mistakes happen. I clarified point 1 in particular. The importance of putting redirect on the redirect page is so that people know the qualifications for deletion of redirects, which are rather specialised. On a related note, wouldn't it help to list the qualifications for speedy deletion on this page??? -- Toby Bartels 05:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dont use this page for articles other than obvious tests. A page shouldn't be added if it has been here for a while and is not vandalism. Don't list articles here that you have an emotional tie to, such as articles created by a user who has a conflict with you(unless the case is obvious vandalism). Redirects should generaly be added to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, and should never be listed here unless they are obviously created by vandals. (i.e. a page called george bush is stoopid and will go to hell which redirects to George W. Bush.) Perl 02:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Also, don't add pages that are already on VFD! Perl 20:32, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I will list the criteria for speedy deletion on this page too, if there are no objections. Perhaps eventually we can combine the pages; but right now, they're still hashing out suggestions for criteria on Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion, whereas here we're actually deleting things (or not, as the case may be). Thus right now, I do think that we need to keep a page each for discussion of theory and practice. -- Toby Bartels 22:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Be careful on speedy deletions

Some people seem to be slapping speedy deletions on pretty much anything they don't like. It should only be reserved for the most blatant tests, vandalisms, etc. Everything else should go on WP:VFD. Dori | Talk 19:50, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

It seems that it's some Wikipedia empirical law that Speedy Deletions tends to become the de facto VfD, and that WP:VFD tends become the de facto Cleanup, and that Cleanup just get ignored by most people.-- Decumanus 19:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Very well said! I'm trying to set an example by spending as much time on cleanup as I do on VfD. Not sure that the format of cleanup is quite right, but that's another topic!
But, I also think there are some cases that either aren't covered by the current policy and should be, or which may be but it's not clear. Specifically, I think that obvious pranks (especially and perhaps even only by anon contributors), and commercial abuse, should both be speedy deletes. What I think we should do now is to gather some examples of both to talk about. This is a little tricky for non-sysops, who can't see deleted articles, but possible. Watch this space. Andrewa 21:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh - and it would help this project if people didn't delist good examples from VfD without mentioning it in the edit summary. TIA. Andrewa 21:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My apologies for not mentioning that I delisted a self-described joke VfD entry - I did not feel the need since the article did not exist (and thus is not valid in VfD) and it was to prove someone's point - not to follow the process described for VfD - I qualify it as vandalism in that scenario - Texture 21:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No apology required, I'm happy to think this was all within current policies, and you had no idea I was about to launch this.
But I do think the guidelines need a little clarification (first), and perhaps change (second). To this effect, would you like to say exactly how (under current policies, ie what they do say) and why (for the good of Wikipedia, ie what the policies should say) this qualifies for speedy delete, in your opinion? Andrewa 21:54, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't delete it (merely removed it from VfD after it was deleted) but I will defend the deletion anyway. Content was a single link and thus a candidate for speedy deletion. Here is the deletion log entry: - Texture 22:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
19:51, 19 Mar 2004 Infrogmation deleted "List of clinically depressed oceanographers who have made contributions to the field of aeronautics" (content was: '* Jacques Cousteau')
Resetting indenting <-

Thanks. Is this log only available to sysops?

I'd like to say again I'm not attacking the deletion, so there is nothing to defend. What I was after was info on the way the system is working. Specifically, how the current policies are understood and used by sysops.

There are three different things to look at:

  • What the doco does say (without getting too legalistic).
  • What the doco is perceived to say, and this is IMO more important, as it governs what happens.
  • What the doco should say. Specifically, we might be able to improve:
    • Clarity. If there's a big difference in perceptions, let's try to get something that is more consistently interpretted.
    • Policy. Specifically, I think there are cases that should be speedy delete and possibly aren't now. Specifically:
      • Obvious pranks.
      • Abuses where the site is being used for commercial or other purposes unrelated to the goal.

The program remains: Gather info, then clarify doco if needed and agreed, then change policy if needed and agreed. Patience required to do it properly. I notice User:RK had a go at something similar at Wikipedia:Pages_that_has_been_on_VFD. One difference is, this seems to have been an attempt to build up an ongoing library of past decisions as precedents, similar perhaps to case law. This project, on the other hand, seeks to analyse the data to provide policy input. Andrewa 21:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the deletion log is available to non-sysops. I think the discussions you propose should take place at Wikipedia talk:deletion policy or wikipedia talk:candidates for speedy deletion rather than here. And it was BL, not RK who made that page. (off-topic: would you have objected to me changing that in what you wrote instead of pointing it out?) Angela. 21:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, agree this discussion (well, it's been a bit of a monologue so far) should move where you say. Correction noted.
On the off-topic, I think what you did is the way to go in a talk page where the text is signed. I don't even correct typos in signed text myself, and at least once when I've been tempted to I've later realised that I'd misunderstood and the text was exactly as intended. I think it should stay as typed until refactored in general. Andrewa 03:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not another page of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/April Fools 2004

  • FFS, woodrow; take this to vfd. ✏ Sverdrup 12:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Duped

Speedy got duped five days ago, how did it last that long? With this much traffic, I thought it would have gotten fixed quicker. --Ben Brockert (:talk:) 01:53, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

I only ever look at the last section so wouldn't notice if it was duplicated elsewhere. I expect others are doing the same which explains it being unfixed for so long. Angela. 12:23, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
VfD suffered the duplication problem a while back, and I think it was like 3 days before anyone noticed. That was a real mess to clean up. Just a data point. -- Cyrius|&#9998 17:50, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Speedy delete category

I asked this on the template discussion page, but I figured more people would respond here. Why was the category added to the speedy delete template. What's wrong with the normal way of using "What links here" for the template? It seems like the category message just adds more clutter.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 02:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image:Clitoris.jpg

  • Image:Clitoris.jpg - This buggy image can't be deleted. It won't go away even with &wpConfirm=1&wpForce=1. If anyone knows what to do, please try it, because this has been here long enough. Guanaco 02:16, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why was that picture deleted ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:02, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It now resides at Image:ClitorisNewLoc.jpg, because any images at Image:Clitoris.jpg seem to be auto-deleted. Guanaco 16:27, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please transfer the license and source and painter information first. Also consider a better name. ✏ Sverdrup 16:02, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This isn't an eligible candidate for speedy deletion. It's not a bitwise identical copy because it's a switch from JPG to PNG, hence it fails to meet the requirements that an image must be identical in every bit, redundant and unused. It needs to go via Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Agree on the better name as well - something like a combination of both names would be a start, but including artist name would also be good to help

those searching for works by that artist find it. Jamesday 08:42, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Two points
  1. I routinely delete images that are in the wrong file format after uploading them in the correct format. Have i been breaking policy all this time?
  2. Whjy on earth has a painting been swapped from a jpg to a png? Pngs are for diagrams ann images with large areas of solid colour. The correct file format for a picture like this is surely 8 bit greyscale jpg ? theresa knott 17:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    I agree, this image is inappropriate for PNG. If you want a bigger copy, go back to the original and make a JPEG. The original is already a JPEG, so it's not like a lossless source is being degraded. The PNG's name is terrible as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Yes, that's contrary to policy as its written now. It's not unusual to see such images listed on images for deletion. Might want to add "a replaced image, where the same person uploaded an image and its replacement before it was ever used in an article. You must say what the replacement image is" as another speedy deletion option. I agree that it's inconvenient as it is. Jamesday 15:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And Jamesday, saving any image as PNG *is* a bitwise identical copy (at least in terms of the image data itself), since PNG is lossless and supports all color depths. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 03:55, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The "all bits the same" wording was added to clarify that "an exact copy of something else" meant no differences of any sort. Format conversions are not always agreed on, as this example demonstrates, and speedy deletions are supposed to be uncontroversial. Jamesday 15:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cap n1ne

I'm wondering why it was added, I don't see anything wrong with it other than it's a Latin Rapper. Cap n1ne --TIB 20:03, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

radiohead.com article

please don't delete the radiohead.com article - i assume the name may have made the rules assume that it was promoting a website, but it is in fact and exploration of a series of artworks which happpen to be websites and the article incorporates the work of many people who will come and develop it. I tried to follow the like to defend it on its talk page but it just said that the article doesn't exist. I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong but I'm rather panicked by the speedy deletion thing and find the layout of the talk page confusing. Thank you.

I'm listing it on votes for deletion to see what the community thinks. Theresa Knott 04:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

please, visit radiohead.com|MAINFRAME VERSION 1.2 and see for yourselves that it isn't a traditional fansite. It's a new way to do art, perhaps be very complicated for many of you to understand this, will we have to wait years until this is recognized as art? mifluki

B-Movie Bandit

I just can't believe this guy. He comes along, drops his stubs, ignores users...then we have a "radical inclusionist" who comes along and merely formats them and removes the speedy delete and B-Movie Bandit notice.

If someone really wants to take the time to expand these, great. If all someone is going to do is format them, we're just as bad off as we were before.

No less than Jimbo Wales has suggested these stubs be speed-deleted and the proxies blocked. We shouldn't have to clean up someone else's mess, especially when that "someone" has a history of vandalism. - Lucky 6.9 18:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

General Mayhem

I don't believe General Mayhem is qualifies for speedy delete...Even though its users are very annoying and their edit war resulted in > 50 edits to the same page in less than an hour, the forum very large. I has > 10 000 000 posts (most of them utterly useless, I'm sure) and an Alexa rank of ~50 000. I believe that makes them borderline notable.

The page should be listed for cleanup.

— David Remahl 06:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:deletiontools

Formatting-wise, I can't find a place to add Template:deletiontools to this page, although it would be very appropriate. Can anybody have a look? -- Itai 00:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added it now. Angela.

Nonsense "rules"

I just removed "If you delete an article marked for deletion, please remove the {{delete}} from the summary" to better match Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. No one seems to follow that odd practise anyway. See also Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators. jni 12:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why would one consider this odd? It provides 10 more characters of delete-motivating content in the summary. When the tag is {{pending deletion}}, removal is even more useful. This strikes me as a good idea that isn't followed mainly out of inertia. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The old guideline was followed at the time we had only few speedy deletes in a day, today we can have nearly 700-1000 deletions per day, most of which are SDs. I don't know anyone who actively patrols RC and wants to fine-tune the deletion log entry. Besides, most non-sysops know to use the alias {{d}} for delete requests where reason is obvious from the content and {{pending deletion}} is now obsolete. jni 07:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is too speedy

User A creates an page. User B doesn't understand what the page is for and in good faith puts a CFSD notice on it. Before user A can explain the purpose behind the page it has already been deleted.

Annoying as hell. - Pioneer-12 00:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point, but when someone adds a "Wikipedia is for **y ****ots" sort of page (like 65.67.63.146 just did), you want that crap off the webspace as quickly as possible.
Those adding tags must be VERY cautious, perhaps just as cautious if not more so than the sysops/admins who have to decide whether to strike the death blow to that page.
In fact an easier policy would probably be to put it on VfD if you're unsure. I did this with Greek Fest, which might be seen as useless obscure vanity but on the other hand might one day grow into a thoroughly informative article. This way, the community and "Fate" decide. Master Thief Garrett 05:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a specific example in mind? Ideally, this shouldn't be a problem. If the article needs a separate explanation it probably shouldn't be an article, anyway. I agree, though, that some administrators speedily delete articles that I don't believe fit the criteria for speedy deletion. I always try to cite the relevant criterion when I'm speedily deleting. One last point: if the article contained so little and was so garbled that two other users can't understand it, then it's probably not that big a deal to start over from scratch anyway, right? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Examples:

  1. I created templates for testing purposes, but they got speedily deleted before I was done testing them. (To prevent this from happening again I created the X1, X2, X3 templates for testing purposes, which are linked from Wikipedia:Template messages.)
  2. I copied templates from meta which were used in the Template:Help file. Again, they're speedily deleted before I could explain to people that: Hey, these odd little templates do have a purpose. What's really irritating is that I thought I gave a good explanation of "what this file is for" in the edit summary but they get speedily deleted anyway. AAAAARRGHHHH!

Perhaps we need a "Possible speedy delete, but wait 30 minutes before doing so" notice. And also people shouldn't be so eager to destroy something just because they don't understand it.

- Pioneer-12 10:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're sounding quite bitter about the whole thing, as if you're complaining only because you got stung by the system. Not to say I blame you...
The problem is, you're creating vague templates for testing. Can't you use the Sandbox for that? You can create Sandbox subpages in order to test the template outside of the page of origin. So what's the problem...?
People just need to use VfD more often. We DO NOT need a new tag, it's confusing enough as it is as to decide where VfD ends and Speedy begins. If you add another, how do you choose between them?
But the bottom line everyone should remember is "when in doubt, use VfD!" The veterans there will vote within minutes of you adding it, some might even Speedy it themselves, and it's out of your hands. Master Thief Garrett 10:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
EDIT: The other possibility is to have a new code setting that speedy'd pages report to the creator and/or last editor before deletion. "(pagenamehere) has been marked for speedy deletion. This page is temporarily hidden from all public viewing. If you do not plead your case here within 24 hours, it will be permanently deleted" That could work, because the trollers could plea all they like and the sysops/admins would just ignore them, and the genuine misunderstandings such as yours could be clarified. Master Thief Garrett 10:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Patent vanity

I would appreciate support for a new category to be added to speedy delete. Articles such as "Daniel Britt - Local celebrity from north London Muswell Hill, Daniel is the guitarist of the well known band the Dharma Bombs. He is also renouned for being the best looking guy in North London, winning Muswell Hill's annual beauty pagent." should not have to be sent to VfD for disposal, but as I read the speedy guidelines, I have no choice. I would like to be able to delete such patently vanity pages without further clogging VfD - is this the appropriate forum to seek support? Denni☯ 00:49, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

there have been past attempts to expand speedy deletion. They haven't gone down to well.Geni 01:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take a common sense approach to articles like that. The policies are there to provide a structure to build Wikipedia upon, not to be used as a straightjacket against us. Sometimes obvious vanity has to be sent to VfD, but other times, like with the example above, you can delete it as vandalism. "Muswell Hill" + "beauty pageant" gets 15 Google hits. A place called Muswell Hill exists, and it has a beauty pageant. Add in "Daniel" + "Britt" and you get zero hits. Try it again using only "Muswell Hill" + "Daniel Britt" and again you get zero hits. Since it is highly unlikely that a man would win a beauty pageant and the assertion is not supported by any easily referenced source, I would delete that article as an indisputably bad faith addition. If the vandal person who submitted an obvious joke wants to dispute it, fine. I would rather make them work hard than to waste the time of a lot of people who are honestly committed to this project. SWAdair | Talk 02:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed! We need to shift more of the burden of proof of encyclopediousness (sp?) to special interests who want to add a page to Wikipedia, instead of wasting valuable editor time refuting all sort of silliness and self-promotion. One route to that direction would be the loosening of the traditionally rigid SD rules and allowing more sysop discretion for deletions, discretion that has already been stretched outside the letter of the rules by several hard-working and honest admins at their own responsibility. jni 07:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Birth of Venus.jpg

This image has been listed as a speedy with the given reason being that "on commons: as commons:image:Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg". As can be seen below these are not the same image. They have different color satutation and brightness and the commons image has a portion cropped off on the left side of the image.

  • Birth of Venus.jpg
    Birth of Venus.jpg
  • Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg
    Sandro Botticelli 046.jpg

Dsmdgold 23:33, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

My entry for 'poopsock' got marked for speedy deletion by Chanting Fox for being 'Patent Nonsense'. The entry does not fit the Wikipedia definition of 'patent nonsense' in any way.

Re: Concador/Concadorian

On the contrary, it appears to be a forgotten ancient land (per Internet search), and perhaps the two stubs could be merged and expanded? IT may be mythological, but it isn't nonsense and actaully could be cleaned up into something rather encyclopedic

Antares33712 21:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quirkyalone

This article should not have been deleted for the reasons given at Talk:Quirkyalone. How can it be retrieved? Petersam 23:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having some trouble

After you put the {{delete}} on a page what do you do next? Jaberwocky6669 June 29, 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Nothing. Just wait. --cesarb 29 June 2005 19:32 (UTC)
...oh... simple enuff lol Jaberwocky6669 June 29, 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Petra Haden image by Mike Watt

Regarding the picture of Petra Haden that I uploaded to Wikipedia for her wiki entry this morning, I have strong reason to believe that the photographer, Mike Watt (yes, that Mike Watt) would not object to its use here.

I have e-mailed Mr. Watt as of one minute ago and should hopefully hear from him within the day. 7 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

I have just heard from Mr. Watt regarding the picture:

cj,

I in fact did take the photo you refer to and you have my full permission to use it at the wikipedia.org site.




mike watt


--Cjmarsicano 7 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)


Geez Louise! Mike Watt was here! I think we've all just been touched by Rock Greatness! Hamster Sandwich 10:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 'Romath' Page

I would request and HEARTILY RECCOMMEND that you DELETE this page. I am Romath, and I never originated the thing. It was placed without my knowledge, and also contained numerous lies and false accusations.

Because of the original content, I tried to clean the lies up, only to find on re-checking that someone had replaced the lies I had removed. 

I was later blocked from entry to even TRY to rectify it, thanks to someone calling himself 'Evil Monkey'.
I got around that little problem he hoped to plague me with, however, by using another computer.

To this day, the lies are still being re-posted to the illegal 'Romath' page. 

It serves no purpose. It is nothing which needs to be in an encyclopedia.

My own website serves the purpose for letting people know the REAL ROMATH.


While wikipedia could be a good thing if put to proper use --- However, when silly message get posted and left there to create nothing more than an editing war, it becomes more of a pain than a pleasure trying to peruse what all information Wikipedia does have to offer.

Please consider my request to formally and speedily REMOVE the ridiculous 'Romath' page.

Thanks in advance for any and all consideratoin to this matter.

Tach'Ara Ch'Lan Romath

I don't understand. You want the page written YOUR way or not at all? Does Bill Clinton come on and make forceful edits to details about his past he doesn't want bandied around? I don't quite understand. Putting aside whether or not you're noteworthy enough to have a mention here, the fact that the article isn't written to your liking should not and will not enter the picture. GarrettTalk 12:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User "Category"

Karl_Anton_August,_Duke_of_Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck Barry Morse Who is this guy?--FourthAve 07:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep mr rat

okay i know the page might not fit the exact 'pedia criteria but this blokes code is good and tight, revisions are timely and his very rare errors are more often than not due to amazon changing stuff. don't delete - promote!


I disagree with the proposed deletion of the 'Tim Davey' page. It is not designed to promote vanity, rather to increase awareness of a talented hip-hop artist. I suggest you leave it on, as it is helping people discover a wonderful musician. Thank You.

Wakkipedia

This was recently recommended for deletion, and I don't see why. The site has just started, but the comment was only "This page only has a front page." which was nearly true, but not quite. The site just began a few weeks ago, so of course it doesn't have all that much content.

You just made a good case for deletion (though I'm not sure why speedy). You told us all exactly how not notable the website is. What makes you think an article about it is encyclopedic, and not just vanity or advertisement? Wikipedia is not a web guide. --Dmcdevit·t 06:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Nobody asked you


User: Jack Cox

Why in God's name am I listed for Speedy Deletion, this is my own profile, what the hell! Jack Cox 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been an error, the editor who put the tag on your page indicated as much when i sent a msg to him. DES (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on talk pages

If a page in the article namespace is created by a vandal with nothing but nonsense, it is quickly tagged for speedy deletion and removed. But if a vandal writes nonsense on a talkpage that didn't exist before (i.e. the vandal creates the talk page to add his nonsense), the situation is quite different. Indeed, some user just blanks the page : the talk namespace contains many blank pages. If you take a look at the page Wikipedia:List of blank pages/talk-user, you'll find the huge list of blank talk pages. The history of those pages show that most of the time they are blanked because

  • A vandal created the page and a user blanked it insted of adding the delete tag
  • A user created the page and then noticed that his comment was not worthy or at the wrong place and blanks the page

I started to tag those pages for speedy deletion, but I feel the work has been done twice. Indeed, if the users who blanked the pages had put a speedy deletion tag, then we would not have this huge list of blank pages to deal with... Shouldn't it clearly be stated on this page that the criteria for speedy deletion also applies to talk pages? In other word if a vandal creates a page, the previous version to which the page should be reverted is no page at all (i.e. deletion) and not a blank page. Glaurung 07:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Attempts to nominate a valuable image for deletion. What up?

Here at this diff, some ANON tried to nominate my image for deletion, and had the gall to use a template that said to leave the notice, and effectively "defend" my decision to keep. I was "guilty until proven innocent!"

Well, this picture (which depicts me in front of the hospice where Terri Schiavo lived) is not usable for an article itself, as long as I don't become famous enough to have an article about myself. However, it is wrong to ASSUME that the pic is NONUSABLE: For, this pic shows that I went to the hospice and took the photo, to prove it was MY photo to release under "GNU Free Documentation License," and not a "Fair Use" photo that belongs to someone else.

And I explained this on my page, to boot! What's with these people than can't (or are unwilling to) take time to READ, hello, the page in question?! Luckily, some old-timer, who apparently doesn't edit much (see comments on his/her user page) reverted. Thank God, but please LOOK before you LEAP, OK? 'nuff said. Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to make so much noise about this. You often see articles/images that are put on speedy deletion on false bases. Sometimes it is due to honnest mistakes made by users, sometimes it is due to anonymus vandals. Anyhow, if this happens, you can safely revert with a brief note of explanation in the edit summary. Glaurung 06:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for all the loud noise -maybe I over-reacted from over-work stress, lol. I think my pages will survive for a while longer. Still, I wonder about the table of contents thing. Have a nice day, and, if you like, please visit the Schiavo article: It barely failed a nomination for featured article, and I have over-worked myself trying to whip Terri into shape for that. Maybe it should be re-nominated?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about speedy deletions

Now that I'm an admin, am I allowed to just go ahead and delete obvious vandalism pages without bothering to put a speedy delete tag on them?

Is there any other way to see a list of current candidates for speedy deletion than checking the contents of the speedy delete category? — JIP | Talk 13:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess!

WP:SD lists several templates that can be used to mark speedy deletion candidates - {{Db-reason}}, {{nonsense}}, {{db-bio}}, {{empty}}, and {{Db-attack}} - plus redirects such as {{d}}, {{nn-bio}}, and {{db}}- without mentioning which are the real templates and which are the redirects. It also fails to mention {{speedy}}, which redirects to {{delete}} (which is also not listed on the page, though its redirect {{d}} is). The whole page needs a thorough overhaul. Grutness...wha? 10:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you care which are the "real" templates? given the short time a speedy template will be in place, the redirect overhead is minimal, so use whichever redirect has maximal mnemonic value for you. Cuirrently, with the exception of {{delete}}, all the speedy demplates start with "db", and several of the redires were once the actual templates -- inm some cases once seperate tempaltes for the ame purpose were combined via redirs. But if anyone wants to reorganize the list on WP:SD, go ahead. Persoanlly i am trying to discourage the use of {{delete}} and its redirects, as it is the only speedy tempalte that gives no reason (I would delete it, but the clear consensus was against this last time it was proposed). When i see someone use {{delete}} or {{d}} I often suggest to them using one of the more specific tempaltes in future, or else using {{db}}. DES (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protesting suggested speedy deletion of Template:Watt

Several weeks ago I created a clean, consise version of a template devoted to veteran American musician/songwriter/bandleader Mike Watt. I accepted the deletion of the original template, but feel that since I have endeavored in all ways to make a template that would fit requirements, that this new template is being unfairly targeted. Not to mention, Mr./Mrs./Its. Flowerparty's addiition of the "db" tag totally fowled up the small, consise design of the new template (Grrrr!). Not cool, guys. Not cool at all. Cjmarsicano 20:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is E-steki a candidate for speedy deletion? What can I do to fix it?

E-steki - why???

Why is E-steki a candidate for speedy deletion?? What can I do to fix it?

V.U.E.

This article is perfectly legitimate. It is not vanity, as the creators of the sport have never identified themselves. As a competitor within the VUE world, and upon discovering there was no VUE wiki, i created one.

The sport of V.U.E. is more than a year old, and while still young, is a legitimate sport with defined rules and regulations, however rudimentary. The entry can be edited however the editors see fit, however i do not see a reason to delete it on the grounds of Vanity.

The article is succinct in its explanation, but is quite detailed. It explains the sport's goal, rules for execution, elements of play, and some bits about its community. It was tagged for Vantiy reasons, which does not seem applicable in this case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SaberoneDC (talk • contribs) 06:56, October 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the vanity tag from the article. However, the article needs to be verified in order to establish it's notability on Wikipedia. I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.U.E.. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing out speedy deletions? =

I recently nominated agleed for speedy deletion, but upon returning, I saw that someone edited it out. Does that mean that speedy deletion no longer works, or does it mean the speedy deletion still remains? Anouymous 00:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That means soemone thought that the articel should not be speedy deleted. This could be a vandal, or soemone who edited the article so it is no longer a speedy candidate, or soemone who thinks it never was a speedy candiadte, perhaps for good reason. There should have been an edit summery or a comment on the talk page or both - check the history. DES (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thrax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrax "Thrax is a fat user from GameFAQs who lives in main. He is confederate and fat. Thrax needs a diet."

Template:future film

Some IP user put CSD onto it, resulting in EVERY future film being put under CSD. I'm reverting it since I think that qualifies as vandalism, but is that the right thing to do? Just curious. --Shadow Hog 23:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. If they want it deleted, they should use TfD, but I don't think deletion of it is at all likely. -Splashtalk 23:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Deletesection}}?

Does anyone think that there should be a template called {{Deletesection}}? Someone tried to add that (and {{Delete section}} to Star Wars: Battlefront II's system requirements section, before giving up and resorting to putting {{db}} in the section, citing that it duplicates the infobox. I consider that to be dangerous, as it could accidentally lead to the article deleted instead of the section removed. Also, you can't really "delete a section", just take it out -- it will still exist in the article history. So, should we create such a template or simply remove sections like that? Wcquidditch | Talk 17:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion tags are for whole articles since that is all that can be removed with a delete button. Anyone wanting to remove a section of an article can just go ahead and do it, as long as they are prepared to defend their decision. There's no need for a template. -Splashtalk 17:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. So, I have now removed the section from that article. There needs to be mention somewhere that if a section should be removed from the article, then someone should be bold and remove it. Wcquidditch | Talk 18:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:BOLD implies that itself. Anyone can make any change they like to any article at any time. It's a wiki. They may be reverted, of course, but that's a different kettle of fish. -Splashtalk 19:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

where did my post go

who deleted it and how will they be punished?

how can they delete my posts yet there is an article on niggers

sickening.

Islam in Spain

This article should not have been deleted. It was correctly listed as copyvio, however, the subject matter is significant, and sits well in the context of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islam_by_country - Islam in France, Islam in Germany, Islam in the United Kingdom, and many others.

Muslims have left a mark on Spain that can be seen architecturally to this day.

The content was a copyvio; however, I deleted the copyvio and the speedy deletion notice: 16:37, 31 October 2005 . . 147.114.226.174 (don't delete!), and added a brief stub (which does need a lot of work). Unfortunately it was deleted at 17:16 by DragonflySixtyseven

Anyway, the article should be restored.

Thanks

I could not find Islam in Spain just now, but anyway, does the article Al-Andalus cover that subject, or did Islam in Spain cover contemporary Islam as well? Joaquin Murietta 15:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't cover much, just a stub. The article has already been deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Islam_in_Spain It should follow a similar format to other Islam in .... articles, historical and current. 147.114.226.172 16:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recently followed the copyvio procedure for List of Guantanmo detainees (and got my ***kicked by a bunch of true believers, (who accused me of being a Cuban, of acting in bad faith, of being a bandit etc etc.) so I am curious why an Admin would speedily delete a stub rather than follow the copy vio procedure. Is there a flaw in the normal copy vio procedure? Also, I changed the link in one article over to Al Andalus when the Islam article link came up red. I think the new Islam in Spain article should reference Al Andalus which is about the Golden Age when Catholics, Muslims, Jews lived together in Spain.Joaquin Murietta 16:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it was pretty clear, in that case, that the item was not a copyvio, and that the arguements offered to show this were well founded. There is a speedy delete criterion for blatent copyvios, see WP:CSD A8. Its use is limited, however, add I question if the above case properly fell under it. DES (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • JM, your characterization of other wikipedians as "true beleivers" appears, to me, to be a violation of the "no personal attacks" rule. Please be more careful. I, for one, am not a true believer in anything, except the rule of law, the right to free speech, the principle of presumption of innocence, open, transparent government, and the rest of the principles any patriotic American honors.
I have never used the phrase "true beleivers". Joaquin Murietta 01:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • JM, I sincerely doubt that you could find many people who would agree with you that you "followed procedure". The Wikipedia:Copyright problems does not absolutely require you to discuss your concern that there was a copyright violation prior to invoking the {copy-vio} procedure. But, in my opinion, you did not practice "Common Sense". Wikipedia:Ignore all rules warns: "Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden — including the practice of 'rules-lawyering' — will attract censure." -- You attracted censure -- not from "true believers" but from ordinary wikipedians who are commited to trying to keep the wikipedia a haven of cooperation and collegiality in a largely partisan internet. -- Geo Swan 00:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking? Joaquin Murietta 01:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Wilkinson

Roy Wilkinson is clearly not a candiate for SD. See Talk:Roy Wilkinson. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 10:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shamans (creatures)

Shamans are not widely known. They are a ledgend from where I come from, a place I'm not willing to risk my neck to tell you. --Wack'd About Wiki 20:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive vomiting

I don't think this is nonsense, personally. It does make quite a lot of sense, even though it's obviously personally directed at someone and probably untrue. Maybe it should be redirected somewhere else (like to vomiting)? XYaAsehShalomX 20:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armada of Agony

This page should not be deleted because it is informative about a little-known band of supervillains. This page is not offensive, it is enjoyable for members of the Armada, and it may help to popularize it.

bob

bbo page should not be delted becasue a sleeping loft of what i told you is true.

Hi Bob. I was the one who tagged that article. I used the wrong tag so I have updated it. The problem, as I see it, is that the article is essentially a dictionary definition (similar to Wiktionary:loft with no notable content. However, there IS an existing Wikipedia page for Lofts which you might want to update with the particular details of a 'sleeping loft'. --CBDunkerson 12:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Fred Buff

Fred Buff is one of the great political movers in Southeast Virginia. He shall not be removed. If so remove all political leaders freom this site!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletions&oldid=28906078"