Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VaughanWatch (talk | contribs) at 11:56, 8 April 2006 (→‎[[Elliott Frankl]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header 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.

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 August 11}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 August 11}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 August 11|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policy; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies supporting their preferred outcome.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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)

6 April 2006

John Law (artistic pioneer)

Can the article on John Law the artist please be undeleted? I was not the original creator but I made some contributions to the page because I thought it was an important subject. The admin harro5 did a speedy deletion based on A7 (not significant). John Law was a very influential member of the Suicide Club, the Cacophany Society, and the early formation of the Burning Man (an event attended by over 30,000 people last year). He has also authored at least one book that I know of. Not everyone may agree with his theories on culture and art but they are undeniably significant and, important to wikipedia, they were foundamental concepts for several movements which do have thier own pages in Wikipedia. At a minimum can we have a "not so speedy" deletion? Thank you! kanoa 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was John Law (artistic pioneer) (a POV title if ever I saw one), the content was uncited, the tone was hagiographic and the subject is of questionable notability (see [1]). If you want to try again with verifiable citations from non-trivial reliable sources do feel free, but any AfD on the content as speedied (twice) is going to be met by a chorus of "speedy delete" since there is no evidence of meeting the notability guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (I corrected the heading to point to the proper article), valid speedy, per JzG. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion If nothing else, the article title makes any claim of NPOV suspect. Feel free to write a WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV article anew. Xoloz 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please let us look and judge for ourselves? Is that possible? I may be inspired to write a robust article if I can review some of the material, and use that as a base to start a search. The title seems unusual but i simply fail to see POV in it. Shouldnt it just be John (insert initial) Law with a link from a disambiguation page? thnaks for some consideration,moza 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism and Judaism

This was deleted through the Prod process on the 1st April 2006. However it had previously survived an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jainism and Judaism). Can prod "win" over AfD in that way?

The other issue is that are 6 Jainism and Xism articles. Some consistency would be good - all are linked from Jainism. (However, I should report that the 5 surviving Jainism and Xism articles score in total 1 Neturality dispute, 4 Cleanup, 1 wikify and 1 please expand. Clearly some work is required).

Part of the AfD discussion was a suggestion to merge all these articles into Jainism and world religions. Unfortunately nobody stepped forward after the AfD vote to edit boldly. (No I'm not volunteering, lack of knowledge and lack of interest in the subject).

What a mess! Where do we go from here? I think that a Deletion review for Jainism and Judaism might be the right place to start from.

Cje 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say a PROD that's six months after an AFD that was far from a resounding keep (not many people discussed it, and those who did were mostly inclined to merge it and its siblings into a single article comparing Jainism with other world religions) is legitimate. If anyone had really cared about keeping it, the PROD tag would have been removed. Keep deleted. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Angr. If no one who had the article on their watchlist cared enough to remove the prod tag, then let the article stay deleted. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid PROD process. It's not a matter of whether PROD has precedence over AFD: it's the fact that PROD is the latest result. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a PROD is challenged, it is undeleted as per WP:PROD#Relation to other processes. Thusly. It's a matter for a new AfD. -Splashtalk 16:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD, very well, I guess I'm not fully versed in the PROD process. :-P --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I agree with Angr. AFD decisions are not permanent. Articles can always be renominated and are not limited to only subsequent AFDs. Note: I am interpreting Cje's question to be a theoretical one and not a specific challenge to the deletion of this article. If he/she clarifies the nomination and makes this a clear challenge to the deletion of this particular article, then it should be relisted. Rossami (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Splash PROD is still undergoing a live test run, folks... it's a marvelous thing, but rough spots are still subject to rapid review. Any good-faith dispute is sufficient to restore for AfD. Unlike Rossami, I do read the nomination as requesting overturn -- "what a mess!" is not a theoretical-framing statement, in my view, but reflects distress at the result. Xoloz 20:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist I guess, but merging seems like a much better solution in the end. Just zis Guy you know? 21:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD per Splash. Thatcher131 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Splash and Xoloz. —Encephalon 02:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore article. The question looks relatively simple to me. Prodding an article that has previously survived AfD is specifically disallowed by Wp:prod under the heading "What this process is Not for". The applicable phrase is the following: if an article has already been through AfD and the consensus was to keep (or there was no consensus), then objections to its deletion have already been raised. Prod can not override a previous AfD. -- JJay 01:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try and clarify why I opened this request. I came across Jainism and Sikhism on the list of unwikified articles and started digging a little. I found 4 related articles Jainism and Hinduism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam, in various states of repair, but a deleted "Jainism and Judaism". Checking the logs I found that this had been through prod, but that there had been a previous AfD and survived - though with a consensus that merging all 6 articles was the best way to go. I would agree with that consensus. At this point my gut reaction was something has gone wrong here, because:

  • The general topic of Jainism and world religions seems notable and a good subject for an article
  • There was a consensus (from AfD) that the articles should be merged.
  • The deletion of the Judaism article means we can't merge.
  • Consistency is good! Either keep all 6 articles (though merged) or delete all 6.
  • An important topic, but there seems to be no subject expert who's willing to do the merge, then edit it until we get a good article.
  • Aggh!! (I wish I'd written that, instead of "what a mess")

I've been around Wikipedia for a while now, but have generally worked away quietly wikifying dead end articles, so I'm not as familiar with details of processes as most of the contributors to this discussion are. But it did seem to me that the situation I describe above was not the intention of Prod.

So I made the request as both a genuine request that the article be undeleted (so "someone" can merge it), and to flag a possible general process issue. If this is the only time that Prod and AfD come into apparent conflict, then let's forget the "theoretical question" and all get back to editing the encylopedia. However, if such situations are likely to be repeated in the future then getting some consensus on ground rules would be useful.

I would like to emphasise that I am not alleging bad faith on anyone's part. I came across a small problem, reported it in the most appropriate forum I could think of, and a sensible discussion resulted. That's wikipedia working well. If my "what a mess" cri de coeur sounded critical, then I apologise for a poor choice of words.

Now I see that Jainism and Judaism article is back. I've tagged all 6 articles for merge into clean them up to the best of my ability. I will almost certainly immeditiately tag it as needing cleanup and/or an expert help because I have no knowledge in this area!

Cje 10:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I attempted the merge, but it's not working. I've proposed AfD and attempted to clean up as much as possible. Thanks to all for patience. Cje 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 April 2006

Grophland

Deleted as being non-notable (discussion here), but there are a number of other similar articles linked from Digital_pet about games no more or less notable. In fact the Digital_pet article created a stub for Grophland which I then expanded, so if Grophland is to be removed then shouldn't they all be? No suggestion that the article was not neutral, better to fix it than delete it if it was surely. Hituro 18:01, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

  • Endorse Deletion Valid Afd. The off shoot pets seem to vary in notablity some have long articles, and others just one line stubs. Might be better to merge the small pets back together into the main article under "Minor Pets", unless they are strong (notable) enough to survive in the wild by themselves. MartinRe 17:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the criterion was not supposed to be the importance of the topic of the article but the validity of the article itself. Why is a complete article on a site with fewer users less valid than one on a site with a greater number of users if both articles follow the guidelines? Hituro 20:04, 5 April 2006 (GMT)
    • Despite some concerns, notability has long been a consideration in AfDs, consistent with WP:NOT a general knowledgebase. See Wikipedia:Notability Xoloz 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link, I wish that had been more clear before I expended the hour or so writing the article! As it says on that page, I obviously thought it was worth listing. Hituro 21:25, 5 April 2006 (GMT)
      • Oh dear...sorry about that! If you'd like to have the text back for your own purposes, I'm sure any admin will send it to your userspace for you, as long as you promise not to repost it elsewhere on WP. Xoloz 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per MartinRe; however, I see no problem with an independent redirect to the digital pet article if subject is mentioned there. Such a choice at individual editor's discretion, of course. Xoloz 19:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is valid; a mention on the Digital pet article might well deserve an external link instead of an internal link. Fetofs Hello! 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it seems strange to have all these pages saying "this is a stub, please expand it" and then remove any page that's added because it's not important enough. The stubs create the expectation that there ought to be an article, and make wikipedia look incomplete because they are not there. In fact someone else had expanded the stud, and it was scheduled to be removed because it wasn't complete enough, so I completed it, and it gets deleted for not being important enough. Shouldn't the stubs and links be removed as well? That should be a general principle in fact. Hituro 7:59, 6 April 2006 (GMT)
  • These are two separate issues. But you are right that people should not create stubs on subjects which are not actually important enough to have an article at all. I'd say that creating an article on a subject where you can't be bothered to give at least the basic context and claims to notability is a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people compared to Bob Dylan

AfD discussion here [2], with 4 keeps, 1 conditional keep, 7 deletes, and 1 merge (to Bob Dylan. Closing admin originally closed as delete, then decided to merge. That's the worst possible outcome; the AfD centered on whether the content was worthwhile -- if it wasn't, adding it (even in an abbreviated version) to another article is just sweeping the dirt under the rug. I think the Afd should have been closed as no consensus, and the article therefore kept; but deletion wouldn't bother me much either. Monicasdude 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Merge Topics can be worthwile, yet not notable enough to justify a separate article. Keep arguments for verifibilty were good, yet delete point that list of musicans that this could encompass could be large was also valid. A merge as per the last comment seems a sensible compromise, as it is a usful subtopic, but in a main article it will be pruned down to notable comparasions. MartinRe 15:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been moved to List of people likened to Bob Dylan and its redirect deleted. So the history is preserved, and the merge has, I presume, been carried out, since this new title is a redirect to [[Bob Dylan[[. -Splashtalk 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is horrible. Seriously. Listcruft of the worst kind - an uncited list of all the people who someone (of no known authority) once referred to as the Bob Dylan of foo - what the hell is that doing in an encyclopaedia? I despair. This is a classic case for a category: artists inspired by Bob Dylan, where article editors can debate the extent of influence so only the meaningful and unambiguous get added. Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse any kind of preservation of verifiable content about notable persons. `'mikka (t) 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, nothing of the content viewed as invalid by those recommending deletion was merged. If you see what the person proposing a merge said, he meant merging the information on artists Bob Dylan was compared to in his early days, which is verifiable and definitely notable. The other content was not merged, but is available in the page history. Only the redirect was deleted, although I can't see why I didn't just fix the double redirect anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, in the strictest sense, an AfD only discusses whether the content is to be kept or deleted. Once an article is closed as not deleted, the content may be merged without a vote if necessary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (kind of: it was a "no consensus" in my eyes, and the merger was a post-closing unilateral act which as Deathphoenix says anyone can do). --kingboyk 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not yet looked at the article. I am about to look at it. If it turns out that most of the names of people "compared to Bob Dylan" are accompanied by good, verifiable source citations, with a quotation cited to show how the person is being compared to Bob Dylan, I will vote to relist. Here goes. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take no action here The article has not been deleted, and is thus was not appropriate to bring here. It is currently a redirect to List of people likened to Bob Dylan. Virtually all of the names are accompanied by references. Spot checking of a couple shows that the references mostly do support the comparison. Clearly the appropriate action is to do nothing. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, it's something of a "Duelling Consensusses" situation now; the AfD was closed with a merger (abridged) into Bob Dylan. Editors on the main Dylan article (myself included) have been removing listcruft of all sorts from that article for some time, and after a bit of a dispute the consensus there seemed clearly to be to let this stand on its own. So, based on that consensus, I was WP:BOLD and undid the merger, since the AfD technically didn't end in deletion. One of the editors who feels very strongly about keeping the material then went over it for verifiability and made significant improvements. I think the current state is one folks should be able to live with as the least disputed and most likely to be stable. Monicasdude 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal speedy deleted and even blocked by NicholasTurnbull. Sheer censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCZenz (talk • contribs) at 02:29, 2006 April 5 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a project where some are entitled to censor those they disagree with. No rule allows deleting valuable content from others' user space. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User space is explicitly given to us for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. Please explain how this was valuable content - that is, how it would have contributed to the advancement of the encyclopedia. It appears to be merely a pair politically motivated userbox templates. At first glance, they do appear to be exactly the kind of "divisive and inflammatory" templates which the new speedy-deletion criterion was created to address. Rossami (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The speedy-deletion criterion for divisive and inflammatory user boxes is for user box templates, not for the user subpages. There are userboxes in the main space endorsing parties that are accused of having lead a war of aggression, how should asking for a trial be more inflammatory than that? Picking opinions you do not like and delete them is censorship. I am completely ok if all user boxes are deleted, but keeping some and removing others even from the user space is obscene. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 06:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Userboxes bore me but even I'd've deleted that one if I came across it. If there are similarly unnecessary userboxes around, tag them for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on MfD. They've already been restored because T1 does not apply, as they are in userspace and not templatespace. Also, none of the endorsements above seem to address the deletion, rather focusing on opinion about userboxes. DRV is not *fD. My opinion? Delete 'em. But they can't be speedied under T1, sorry. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted User opinion is fine, but tendentious phrasing and resource hogging (loading up 20 full-sized graphics just to make a not very original point) is out of line. I'd have no problem with "This user opposed the Iraq war" or "This user believes the Iraq war was an illegal invasion" in the usual format. We've already been through the discussion about images vs text in userboxes. ProhibitOnions 12:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the pictures was loaded up by me, they are all used on the people's article pages. The pages have been recreated as there was clearly no legitimation to delete them, and all those who set their personal preferences higher than wiki policy by supporting the deletion here set a bad light on themselves. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyrighted pictures can be eligible for the "fair use" exemption based on context. They can be legal in one context and not in another. For the most part, use in articles qualifies for the "educational use" clause. User-space does not qualify for that clause. The fact that the pictures were loaded by someone else and are in use appropriately in the article-space has no real relevance to whether or not they are allowable under copyright laws in the user-space. Regardless of how the rest of this discussion turns out, please replace all the copyvio pictures with public domain versions. Let's keep this debate focused on a single issue, please. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first one (the one with all the pictures): Keep deleted. It's a userspace page using non-free images. Clearly against WP copyright policy. For the second one (just text): List on MfD per BorgHunter. Powers 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely the copyvio should be resolved by either deleting the image or removing the reference? If an article contains a non-free image, that article would not be deleted for the crimes of its contained image, so why should it be different in userspace? MartinRe 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, it probably should. However, the page is completely useless without the images. I tried to remove the images and all it left was a contextless assertion talking about "these people" without any indication of who they were. I tried replacing the images with names but I don't know who they all are. =) Powers 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the fair use images. The ones I left are valid in userspace. Not all of them were fair use. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on MfD WP:NOT is not a valid reason under WP:CSD, and it should not be allowed to become a de facto one, which it will, if incorrectly speeding is allowed to be justified by WP:NOT or WP:SNOW. DRV is about process, not content, and this was not a valid speedy, so should be relisted. MartinRe 14:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion clearly violated policy. Shame on those who use deletion powers to censor opinions they do not agree with. De mortuis... 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no reason to censor that user page. Raphael1 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and block the troll again. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and for one to mess with Deletion Review because someone has a different political stance is to prove how little one's opinion should hold in such a naturally unpolitically-biased discussion. Chris M. 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, or keep deleting. Find somewhere else to posture. Wikipedia may be free and tolerant, but it is not for soapboxing. And also observe that the editor has reinserted images that have plainly incorrect copyright status. You don't rely on the tag, since the tag can be wrong. -Splashtalk 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Disruptive use of userspace to circumvent T1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not "circumventing t1", this is what wikipedia policy advises people to do: keep controversial opinions to their user space. There is no way you can censor that. De mortuis... 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes there is, actually. Userspace is not sacred, and does not 'belong' to the user whose name heads it. Wide latitude is granted, but not infinite latitude, particularly when it is being used to circumvent T1 as Sjakkalle observes. -Splashtalk 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The rule currently is that users are even encouraged to move controversial boxes to the user space. There is npo legitimation to remove anything there, and T1 does not apply. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and strongly encourage the new users here to read up on policy. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted It is important for me to say first that WP:NOT truly is NOT a CSD, as suggested above, and the deletions were improper. However, given my long experience at MfD, I can't see such soapboxery from a new user standing any chance at that forum, so I will follow the suggestion of WP:SNOW in this case. Xoloz 16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree that it would probably fail MfD, but if SNOW is used to justify invalid speedies, then WP:NOT becomes a de facto CSD criteria, which I believe is important not to happen. MartinRe 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, and your concern is a valid one; however, a userpage of a "newbie with an apparent agenda" is, in my view, probably the worst possible case on which to make such a stand for due process. If this matter concerned any other type of page, or if the editor had a record of a few constructive edits, I'd be right with you. Truth is, though, such userpages routinely show up on MfD for 5-7 days, thanks to the backlog, get three or so delete votes without much discussion, and are deleted with little fuss. The opinions expressed here constitute about 100 times more consideration than such a page usually merits, so I'm comfortable it has had more than a fair hearing. Xoloz 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a great believer in consistancy in process, so in some ways a case like this is the best one to point it out. Wasn't one of the pivotol free speech cases in the US decided when the speech was "distasteful" to many? If WP:NOT is not a CSD, then it should apply in all cases, and not "WP:NOT is NOT a CSD (except in 'bad' cases)" Ouch, my head hurts with all the NOT is not confusion :) Regards, MartinRe 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query CSD T1 allows speedy deletion only of divisive templates. But at what point does a user subpage (which may be transcluded) become a template? Transcluded once? Transcluded by someone other than the user? (with or without the explicit permission of the user?) Transcluded widely with the clear intention that it was designed to be used that way? To me, only the last option would pass the duck test to class it as a template, and a potentially valid deletion under CSD T1. However, this subpage has very few (three if I remember) references, so doesn't justify calling it a template in my view. And if it ain't a template, it can't be deleted under CSD T1. MartinRe 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically: "User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." jacoplane 16:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and delete the rest of the userspace documents in addition. Don't assist in the goals of the encyclopedia, aren't productive and isn't what this site is about at all. Why not use a Myspace account..? -ZeroTalk 16:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user has still not answered my original question. How do these two pages contribute to the creation of the encyclopedia? Without such explanation, this appears to be a misuse of userspace. My position is slowly hardening to delete. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic keep deleted: I've never been a part of userbox partisanship, but these are such a blatant violation of our goals here as an encyclopedia that no other solution makes sense. T1 is to be used with caution, especially where disputed, but this kind of textbook case where a page has been created and recreated for the sole purpose of divisiveness and deliberate inflammation is exactly what it's there for. I say recreated because this is also that: a recreation of deleted content from the template namespace (see Special:Undelete/Template:User_against_Iraq_war_of_aggression and Special:Undelete/Template:User_GOP_criminal), and notice now that between the template and userspace recreation, this usr has now recreated it seven times each. I'm going to go redelete them and warn him. Dmcdevit·t 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving userboxes to user space if there is controversy about them in main template space is exactly what the current policy encourages to do, and other users motivated him to do so. You are acting out of process and should be warned yourself. De mortuis... 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia and these have nothing to do with that. Rx StrangeLove 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Contributes nothing to the building of an encyclopedia, which anything in userspace is supposed to do. -Mask 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Pretty much everything's been said. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per above. I shall restrain myself from saying anything more lest I beat WP:CIVIL into a bloody pulp. Lord Bob 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, pretty much nothing left to say that hasn't been said. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While archiving the talk page for WP:CSD, I found this edit by ROGNNTUDJUU!. It appears to be a rejection of the use of userspace to circumvent the deletion of divisive templates. I am confused by the apparent inconsistency with the sentiments expressed above. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, that was way back on March 5, apparently his third whole day editing here. Evidently, his position has evolved and changed a lot in the last few weeks. Nhprman 00:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anti-american propaganda. Unfortunately, it's turning into such more and more. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. These do not help the encyclopedia at all, and one of them is potentially libellous, which should ask for nuking off the database. Also, if Tony and Splash agree on deleting something, it must be really horrible. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Deletion - This is a divisive political userbox designed to provoke debate, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The creator of the box has reverted admins' deletion several times, and has rebuffed numerous friendly attempts to explain WP policies. Side note: Deleting all political- and belief-themed boxes would end this foolish game, and not just in this case. Nhprman 00:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote one: administrator Mike_Rosoft had created the pages in order to move them from the main space. As it is not allowed at all to delete user subpages because you do not like the opinions expressed on them he unblocked the pages after they had been deleted and unblocked. The first admin who had deleted gave in. Now another one deleted. Sidenote two: I agree with your sidenote. But then go ahead and do not single out certain ones. De mortuis... 01:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. No part of writing an encyclopaedia. David | Talk 09:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speedy deletion is invalid; the page doesn't meet the criteria, because:
    1. These pages are not templates, so speedy deletion criteria for templates do not apply;
    2. Speedy deletion of a page doesn't automatically make any its re-creation a speedy candidate, it must meet speedy deletion criteria by itself; and
    3. Content which has been moved to user space (or re-created there) is excluded from being a candidate for speedy deletion as a re-post.
Undelete, candidates for speedy undeletion. Please bring it to WP:MFD if you must. - Mike Rosoft 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the new evidence, do not bother with undeletion unless a legitimate user requests it. - Mike Rosoft 08:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buxton University

I created this article because a anon. user was removing it from List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. However, it was brought to my attention that it was deleted over a year ago. Yet, it seems that it was deleted as spam/ad/unverifible. My sources are two state governments and three news agencies.

Moreover, the "school's website" is instantdegrees.com and attempts to "intimidate" (as a news report noted) anyone who makes the connection between instantdegrees.com and Buxton. Hence, I think it is important to "undelete" and it is notable enough. "Instantdegrees.com" gets almost 5,000 hits and "buxton university" gets only 700. However, since this fraud has been reported in various government and news groups I think it is worthy of wikipedia inclusion. Arbusto 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow re-creation. Call it a consumer service. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation and recommend that a redirect be set up from Instantdegree.com to Buxton. JoshuaZ 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think there are issues here with the validity of this for an article. Instantdegrees.com has an alexa of close to 300,000 [3], which hardly seems very prominent. Buxton is largely unknown and gets almost no google hits [4]- and the hits it does get are often things like William Buxton, University of London. The previous AfD raised serious questions about verifiability that look still to be valid- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buxton_University. The article as it stands includes five lines that state and restate how Buxton is not accredited, followed by a long description of news reports of people who have bought diplomas from the school. The question this raises is what else is there to say about this? If it is just a scam, and a fairly unknown scam at that, why do we need the article? While I don't support advertising, I also don't support doing an attack page on a non-entity. -- JJay 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this article is very helpful and can be expanded (I wrote it minutes ago and your claiming it "can't"). If someone puts Buxton as their university on an job application or a webpage it would be nice for the largest online encyclopedia to have information about it. This is important since Buxton's name is similiar to a respected school. Also the comments in the AfD are not relevant because this article does not read like an unverfied ad. These are three news reports and two government sources. Arbusto 03:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arbustoo seems to be our local expert on unaccredited institutions. If he thinks it is notable, I'm inclined to give him a few weeks to see what he can put together on it. JoshuaZ 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's a Washington Post article about fraud from 2004 surrounding a "Doctor" who's degree was from Buxton University.[5] In that article the Post wrote "repeated Web searches and several calls to overseas operators did not turn up a listing for a Buxton University." Wikipedia should include information about Buxton as a resource for those that want to know. Arbusto 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation. I was the one who nominated this on AfD last time, but I did so hesitantly after having attempted a rewrite. I would also like to ask for a history undelete of my version. I don't know if there was anything in it that may still be useful and lacking from Arbustoo's version, but it might be worth checking (I haven't kept an offline version). At some point in the future, I would like to see a consolidation of diploma mill articles, and more focus on the businesses and people behind the mills (which are often just temporary façades), but until then I think it is reasonable to collect the material in individual articles. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Wikipedia's articles on diploma mill articles also function as a service for consumers and as a counterweight to all the webspamming produced by the mills themselves. Tupsharru 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation. Current article is an encyclopaedic treatment of a degree mill with reasonable external coverage. Just zis Guy you know? 10:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation. Per Arbusto's 05:24, 5 April 2006 comment. If this was ONLY because people are looking for info on it, then I think that would be reason enough, because why isn't wikipedia the source of this info? But it's not just about that, it also has quite a few references. Chris M. 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation per Arbusto and JoshuaZ. Thryduulf 14:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete -- having got access to the text, this is useful information about three "fake" sources of degrees, which someone might well look up. The article also gives sources and substantiation, at leats enough to counter prima-facie pleas of innocence. -- Simon Cursitor 08:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation although sadly anyone smart enough to find this on WP is probably not going to fall for an instant degree - I'd wager my MA in "Life Experience" on it. Eusebeus 10:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation and recommend a redirect per JoshuaZ, others. Samaritan 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per jpgordon --FloNight talk 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Standard practice; as jpgordon. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per jpgordon. Guettarda 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per jpgordon. Xoloz 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Deathphoenix. Thryduulf 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted, as there's no wrongdoing here. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Just to clarify, if it hadn't already been deleted once by another admin, I wouldn't have done it, but as it had been, and was restored only temporarily, I saw no reason to bother anyone else with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Uncertified RFC. (Undelete if and only if SlimVirgin changes her mind and wants it restored). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As I recall, the RfC was not certified, and was therefore eligible for deletion. SlimVirgin very properly did not delete it herself originally; it was deleted by Ed Poor. Reference to the RfC was made at the time of an ArbCom case involving FuelWagon, and the RfC was temporarily undeleted by an arbitrator, as it might be needed as evidence during that case. That case is long over now (and in fact did not in any way rely heavily on that RfC). I do not find it in any way inappropriate for SlimVirgin to have carried out the second deletion, and would commend her for not having done the first one. I presume that the arbitrator simply forgot to delete it a second time, and I would have been more than happy to do so. AnnH ♫ 09:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse re-deletion of temporarily undeleted uncertified RfC. Why are we even discussing this? Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Mildest imaginable sanction possible for SlimVirgin for not letting someone else do the delete and thus avoiding this discussion. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted per Xoloz. JoshuaZ 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure/Keep deleted per Xoloz --FloNight talk 17:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. I personally liked the template, but I agree with Dpbsmith. {{featured article}} was controversial, even though it is part of a stable area of Wikipedia policy; Good articles still needs some fine-tuning, so it is not appropiate to have an article-namespace template for it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Xoloz said. —Encephalon 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it dead. — Apr. 5, '06 [03:13] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Endorse deletetion Template was correctly deleted, but agree with Xoloz about a more explicit rationale in the closing statement. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, or if you're a huge fan of process, undelete it and then re-delete it per CSD:G4, because Template:Good, a similar template, was previously deleted through TFD. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, support reactivation of template when GA is approved, especially if approved soon. I disagree with Raul that supporters were not attentive to process. Myself and at least one other changed our votes to neutral from keep on reconsidering the merits of the process argument (clarified) and we both stated so. Further, I believe Raul has stated on GA discussions that he does not see a need for the GA project. Further, a number of supporters noted that process has not always been an issue with allowing very helpful tools to remain. That is a process argument. (I disagree with that point.) I wonder if many GA supporters know about the discussion here. (Since I'm fairly new here, a few months, and wonky in general but not wonked out on your policies, I'm going to post a note about this process on the GA talk page.) If the GA project is approved soon, I strongly propose that this reconsideration process be reversed and re-initiated with a clear call out to the GA project pages. I think the handling of this decision process could be much more transparent and supportive of dialog. I hope the approval of GA project and its utility has not been harmed by this process.--Vir 06:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore template. Raul654's actions were very much out-of-line as there was clearly no consensus. Cedars 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, excellent AfD closure, Thryduulff, this was definitely a tough one to close. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The Vaughan soap opera rolls on. · rodii · 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse Relisting AfD or Redoing Article 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.[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Comment This is nth time that either VaughanWatch or Eyeonvaughan or one of their group has accused me of bias. Each time, I ask for proof, or even one single example of a biased edit that I've made. Each time, they aren't able to. Above, VaughanWatch accuses me of "Whitewashing" and starting the edit wars, yet all of my edits have been to the betterment of Wiki, none of been PoV, and none have been unverifiable, unlike the vast majority of the article in question. Furthermore, I have always admitted right off the bat that I'm Alan Shefman's son, that was never a secret, and still, I have always edited NPOV while enduring the Personal Attacks. I've sat through attacks on my character, on my charitable work, and through accusations that everything I do hear is biased. It's a shame that they make these accusations, dragging my name through the mud, without ever presenting a shred of proof. pm_shef 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as Xoloz said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • keep deleted. nn, due process. `'mikka (t) 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's a better option than deleting it entirely. Frankl is more notable for his work in the sports world than in the political world. He was in the top 40 under 40, which is quite an achievement. He's the head of a sports marketing firm that he started as a teen, and an agent to many stars. He's the head of sponsorship for the International Hockey Hall of Fame http://www.ihhof.com/aboutContact.htm and an official agent for the NHL. So if the article can be redone, and the non-provable stuff omitted, that would be fine, if there's consensus. VaughanWatch 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Again, to respond to Bearcat: the notion of defending Wikipedia's rules is commendable. But this defence is forceful, arbitrary, and assumes bad faith.
    You think you can remove opposition to your and Pm_shef's campaign by bullying your opponents. And you assume that the editors have bad faith - here's what you said recently: "I believe that you're citing it in an attempt to discredit Susan Kadis because of your personal agenda against her."
    If you're really interested in an objective encyclopedia, you'd stop being an accomplice to Pm_shef's personal agenda to a) glorify his allies (Susan Kadis, Mario Racco, Alan Shefman, Mario Ferri) and b) remove his opposition (Elliott Frankl, Yehuda Shahaf, Vaughan Watch). As long as Pm_shef is on his campaign, there will be a counter-campaign. As long as there is an unjust, unfair and corrupt use of power, there will be those opposed to it. VaughanWatch 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Non-notable suburban municipal candidate, not verifiable. Most of the keep votes were from sockpuppets or people whose only edits have been on Vaughan-related pages and were quite rightly discounted by the closer (Thryduulff). Goes against consensus reached earlier after a number of AfDs that incumbent councillors should not have articles, nevermind unelected candidates. Bearcat is to be commended for his patience in attempting to deal with this mess. Luigizanasi 05:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC
  • What Sjakkalle said. —Encephalon 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Bearcat is so evidently eager to enforce the rules, will he finally enforce this one, from WP:NOT, under "Wikipedia is not a soapbox": Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so."? VaughanWatch 09:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've pointed out to you before: I did address that rule with pm_shef. Unlike you guys when a rule breach was discussed with you, pm_shef responded respectfully and politely, and took the advice seriously and in good faith. Furthermore, unlike 3RR or NPA, it isn't a rule that one can be banned for violating — it's one where the limit of an administrator's authority in the matter is to remind the offending user that there's a rule. Bearcat 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Valid closing rational given with some suspect keep votes dicounted. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only person discounting those votes is Pm_shef and his administrative assistant. If you disagree, you are labelled a "sockpuppet". VaughanWatch 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everybody in this discussion has viewed the votes as discountable with the exception of those who have a vested interest in this article. It has nothing to do with what side of the debate they happened to support, and everything to do with WP:SOCK. And re: "administrative assistant", you have been advised more than once to can the personal attacks. They stop now. Bearcat 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, keep deleted. Elected to national office? Notable. Runinng for local office? Not notable. Valid AfD decision, per policy and guidelines, no new evidence presented of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse relist with protection I am not involved in the disputes of the many articles involving people from Vaughan region, I contributed to article because, Frankl is very notable within the sports business industry his candidacy in the municipal election is irrelevant in terms of being notable enough for a article, despite the false claims that one wiki user keeps mentioning everything in the article in accurate including Frankl serving on the board of the International Hockey Hall of Fame. Frankl was listed on the International Hockey Hall of Fame article since he was elected in Nov. 2005 until one wiki user started vandalising the IHHOF article as well. This is the same wiki user that has been vandalising this article as well as many others. I wonder if it has anything to do with that this wiki user is the son of Frankl’s opponent in the municipal election?--JohnnyCanuck 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All you guys needed to do was provide a link to a page (not a Wikipedia mirror) which stated that Frankl holds a position on the board of directors. Even his own campaign page doesn't say he holds a position on the board of directors — it just says he works with them. But no matter how many times you guys were asked to provide a source, all you could do was continually assert that the IHHOF just hadn't updated their web page yet. That's an unverifiable claim. Nobody asserted that the claim was false — but as it stands, it's unverifiable. If you want it included, show a source. Bearcat 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine. Remove the board of directors reference, and any other reference that isn't definitely verifiable. Would you and others agree to a shortened, 100% verifiable article on Elliott Frankl? And is that a consensus? VaughanWatch 23:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is also NPOV and verifiably proves he is notable enough for an article then yes it would be welcome. The main reason the article was deleted was because there was no verifiable evidence he was notable - read WP:BIO for what constitutes notability. Thryduulf 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I agree, although I doubt very much that he would meet the WP:BIO criteria. I personally get fifteen times as many google hits (661) as Frankl (42), I have run for public office, I am a published author, and was recently quoted in a CBC news story, and have been on the board of a number of organizations that should have Wikipedia articles (which I do not intend to write given my personal involvement), but I don't think that any of that makes me notable enough to have a wikipedia article. What I would like to see is news stories or other verifiable evidence to show that he is notable in hockey circles. I haven't found any. So, Mr. DeBuono, instead of attacking Bearcat's integrity, you would be much better advised to devote your energies to finding evidence of Frankl's notability and presenting it here. Luigizanasi 01:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If every unverifiable claim in the old article were removed, the only claim to notability in the article would be the fact that he's a candidate in the municipal council elections. And has been repeatedly pointed out, unelected candidates in municipal council elections are not notable per WP:BIO. Bearcat 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat responded to the wiki statement "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so," by writing: "...unlike 3RR or NPA, it isn't a rule that one can be banned for violating — it's one where the limit of an administrator's authority in the matter is to remind the offending user that there's a rule."
    What's the point of having a rule if it's not enforced?
    And why did you write that you have a campaign to ensure wikipedia rules are followed, and said that "It means WP:BIO. It means WP:WEB. It means WP:NPA. It means WP:V." and not *enforce* NPA in Pm_shef's case? VaughanWatch 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not aware that user:Pm shef has made any personal attacks. If you have evidence that he has then I suggest you present it as part of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan. Thryduulf 23:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thryduulf that's exactly the point. Pm_shef doesn't need to make an actual edit that is serving his purposes. And he doesn't need to make personal attacks. The wiki policy says the he cannot EDIT any article that he is personally involved in. He was been warned about this by user:Bearcat. But Bearcat hasn't gone far enough. How this boy can have the audacity of both discrediting and removing his father's opposition from what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia is disgusting. Worst of all are those who are complicit. VaughanWatch 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody is complicit in anything. I'd be the first one to editblock pm_shef if he crossed the line, trust me. But as things stand, Frankl doesn't belong in a neutral encyclopedia until you guys can actually provide sources to verify that he meets the WP:BIO criteria of notability. If you had put even a fraction as much energy into finding legitimate sources for the article as you've been putting into whining about the family connections of an editor who hasn't committed any bannable offenses, the article might well have been keepable — but no, instead you launched a POV edit war over unverifiable claims that even Frankl's own campaign website doesn't make. Needless to say, that doesn't make me terribly inclined to trust your judgment. Bearcat 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, you'll notice that I have not edited anything related to Frankl's candidacy is the election, only things related to your other claims that are unverifiable. Furthermore, if I were to be banned for editing things that I have personal involvement in, then VaughanWatch would have to be also, as his site makes him inherently involved. The fact is though, this is another example of you guys making completely baseless accusations against me with no proof! pm_shef 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Re-doing Article As Thryduulf, Luigizanasi, and VaughanWatch have said, the article should be re-done so that it meets WP:BIO. Frankl, and his company particularly, have been mentioned in many hockey-related sites, and this is his real claim to notability. A google search for his company, Sports Rep Marketing, shows 227 hits. His company is mentioned among the great suppliers at CrossOff International's site, along with Wayne Gretzky Authentic, Jordana Sports International Inc and Great North Road (Bobby Orr). Other awards for the company can be found at these admittedly biased sites: 1 and 2. So if anyone wants to volunteer to do this, and make a verfiable article, I suggest we do it. Skycloud 02:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With respect, that Google search brings up 64 unique hits for me, which is, like, less than my dog. · rodii · 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Luigizanasi. --Ardenn 03:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Page has been marred by vandalism of Pm_shef. Keep it and expand. Poche1 18:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process Comment: The standard format for these discussions is indented bullets. Please try to stick to that format. It makes following the discussions (and later, closing them) much easier if we can stick to the standard. I've tried to standardize this particular thread. If doing so changed the meaning of your comment, please correct it. Rossami (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Vaughan voters may or may not establish his notability in the fall. Samaritan 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Admin took arguments for deletion v. keep into consideration rather than a raw vote count. Determining concensus for closing was within admin's discretion. -maclean25 03:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite admin making a decision at the time, the decision was not reflective of the notability of the subject. Poche1 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • What you describe as 'unrelated' articles, I would describe as precedent.Seabhcán 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, good analysis by Thryduulf. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Thryduulf's sound analysis. -Dawson 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep deleted; I don't really see consensus but this needs to go nevertheless. Kotepho 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 above. Tom Harrison Talk 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Thatcher131 above. -Will Beback 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Undelete per Striver. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Newsworthy is not the same as encyclopedic. There is just no encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] — Weregerbil 09:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • 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 [15]. 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Simply put: this was not closed improperly. Eusebeus 09:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admin acted correctly. David | Talk 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: per everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted per wknight94. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 and others above. --mtz206 23:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, keep deleted per Thryduulf, MONGO, Krich, Rossami and Dpbsmith, who basically said all I would have said myself. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on AFD to generate a clearer consensus. -- King of Hearts talk 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, aside from the fact that the AFD resulted in a clear delete decision, the article topic is junk in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Closing analysis of AfD discussion was correct IMO, although I think the article topic has merit for being in WP. No comment on the actual article content. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Per excellent analysis of closing admin -- Samir (the scope) 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Lack of clear consensus. The fact that some of the users may have registered recently doesn't really prove much unless you can establish they are sockpuppets. Nil Einne 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, article violates WP:NOT. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • List on AfD. Let it get its week in the sun before it's deleted.  RasputinAXP  c 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/list not a speedy. --Rob 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW. (And I'm a huge fan.) John Reid 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 09:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Clearly violates WP:CSD. Take to AfD if within the relevant percentage majority. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Relist per Kcordina's above comments. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse per Sam Blanning and MartinRe. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • [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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per User:JzG's comments above. --Hetar 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per above; perfectly within process, and the right thing to do given previous AfD discussin. Eusebeus 10:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and transwikify to Striverpedia. Thatcher131 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per User:Dpbsmith's [1] test logic. [16]. 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)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Keep deleted and salted. I think it's been through plenty of deletion processes. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - per above. Raphael1 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Germen. Concern that the contentious term may have been improperly deleted. It's not used as much as -phobia but has been used by a number of websites and pundits to describe perceived obsequious pandering to Muslim demands. (In this sense it is similar to philo-Semitism.) I am expressing no opinion here as to the merits of the term, but it deserves more discussion; a less hasty solution might have been to redirect it to Islamophobia and describe it as a pendant to the more common term there. ProhibitOnions 21:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and relist on AfD The first deletion following AfD was valid. The second G4 speedy deletion in the midst of another AfD was not valid. The article as it stood at the time of deletion was clearly not recreated content of a substantially identical copy of the deleted material. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [17]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Encephalon, who manages to hit the nail on the head, as always. Xoloz 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - Whereas Wikipedia internet nerds may find this little incident newsworthy, the world does not. - Hahnchen 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted attack issue aside, wholly unnotable. Eusebeus 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I allowed to endorse my own deletion? Disregard if not. Stifle 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, for the reasons stated (quite well) by Encephalon. -Colin Kimbrell 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Encephalon's excellent analysis. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Encephalon and Just zis Guy. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Overturn Nuffle 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Undelete Chad78 This should be left as it applies to current events, which are a part of Wikipedia. 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and God help us all if Wikipedia becomes the soapbox of choice for 1337 5|@5hd0+ n!nj@5 who need yet another place where they can sneer at people. --phh 17:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, `'mikka (t) 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete, notable by virtue of his position, plenty of verifiable information that can be kept. NPOV problems can be fixed. He meets the following WP:BIO criteria: "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" and "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Angr (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Significant press coverage and lots of verifiable information. Important person to a local community and at least one online community. — David Remahl 05:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

27 March 2006

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)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game)

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)[reply]

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

18 March 2006

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Vonderplanitz gets 32,400 Google hits [18] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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 [19] and one from the L.A. Times [20].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Relist (or basically, Undelete). Why is AV not being considered a "real" person of note in the raw food arena? Five minutes online reveals:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, no notability. Two non-notable books, published by a shadowy company which might be AV himself, since the only website associated with it is an earthlink page which is dedicated to his books. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 March 2006

Gilles Trehin

  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

  • Comment: The article on Urville has been overwhelmingly deleted in a recently closed AfD vote. Harro5 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This already went through RfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted all cross-space redirects should start with WP: prefix. --Doc ask? 11:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • undelete this harmless redirect please Yuckfoo 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Tony and Doc. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Undelete; a few cross-space redirects are okay. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently concluded

  1. James H. Fetzer, original speedy deletion of article upheld, recreated redirect left in place. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Portuguese Discovery of Australia, delisted early—inappropriate for deletion review, as page version was never deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Doorknob (game), deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Betty chan, kept deleted. Copy of article reposted on talk page moved to User:Snob/Betty Chan; talk page deleted per CSD G8.14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Young Writers Society, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mike Murdock, deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. David R. Smith, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Stir, deltetion overturned, relisted on AFD where there was a consensus to keep. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. California State Route 85, status quo maintained. 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Control Monger, restored, relisted for AFD. 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. MPOVNSE, kept deleted. 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Omar Q Beckins, kept deleted. 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. The Go, deletion overturned. 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. John Fullerton, deletion endorsed. 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Imaginary antecedent kept deleted; sadly (and very surprisingly) appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia:No original research; completely unreferenced. 14:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Template:People_stub restored, unprotected, listed for consideration on WP:SFD. [21] 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Myg0t overturned and undeleted. 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. 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

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.

Decisions to be reviewed

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 August 11}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 August 11}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 August 11|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policy; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies supporting their preferred outcome.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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)

6 April 2006

John Law (artistic pioneer)

Can the article on John Law the artist please be undeleted? I was not the original creator but I made some contributions to the page because I thought it was an important subject. The admin harro5 did a speedy deletion based on A7 (not significant). John Law was a very influential member of the Suicide Club, the Cacophany Society, and the early formation of the Burning Man (an event attended by over 30,000 people last year). He has also authored at least one book that I know of. Not everyone may agree with his theories on culture and art but they are undeniably significant and, important to wikipedia, they were foundamental concepts for several movements which do have thier own pages in Wikipedia. At a minimum can we have a "not so speedy" deletion? Thank you! kanoa 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was John Law (artistic pioneer) (a POV title if ever I saw one), the content was uncited, the tone was hagiographic and the subject is of questionable notability (see [22]). If you want to try again with verifiable citations from non-trivial reliable sources do feel free, but any AfD on the content as speedied (twice) is going to be met by a chorus of "speedy delete" since there is no evidence of meeting the notability guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (I corrected the heading to point to the proper article), valid speedy, per JzG. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion If nothing else, the article title makes any claim of NPOV suspect. Feel free to write a WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV article anew. Xoloz 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please let us look and judge for ourselves? Is that possible? I may be inspired to write a robust article if I can review some of the material, and use that as a base to start a search. The title seems unusual but i simply fail to see POV in it. Shouldnt it just be John (insert initial) Law with a link from a disambiguation page? thnaks for some consideration,moza 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism and Judaism

This was deleted through the Prod process on the 1st April 2006. However it had previously survived an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jainism and Judaism). Can prod "win" over AfD in that way?

The other issue is that are 6 Jainism and Xism articles. Some consistency would be good - all are linked from Jainism. (However, I should report that the 5 surviving Jainism and Xism articles score in total 1 Neturality dispute, 4 Cleanup, 1 wikify and 1 please expand. Clearly some work is required).

Part of the AfD discussion was a suggestion to merge all these articles into Jainism and world religions. Unfortunately nobody stepped forward after the AfD vote to edit boldly. (No I'm not volunteering, lack of knowledge and lack of interest in the subject).

What a mess! Where do we go from here? I think that a Deletion review for Jainism and Judaism might be the right place to start from.

Cje 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say a PROD that's six months after an AFD that was far from a resounding keep (not many people discussed it, and those who did were mostly inclined to merge it and its siblings into a single article comparing Jainism with other world religions) is legitimate. If anyone had really cared about keeping it, the PROD tag would have been removed. Keep deleted. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Angr. If no one who had the article on their watchlist cared enough to remove the prod tag, then let the article stay deleted. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid PROD process. It's not a matter of whether PROD has precedence over AFD: it's the fact that PROD is the latest result. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a PROD is challenged, it is undeleted as per WP:PROD#Relation to other processes. Thusly. It's a matter for a new AfD. -Splashtalk 16:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD, very well, I guess I'm not fully versed in the PROD process. :-P --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I agree with Angr. AFD decisions are not permanent. Articles can always be renominated and are not limited to only subsequent AFDs. Note: I am interpreting Cje's question to be a theoretical one and not a specific challenge to the deletion of this article. If he/she clarifies the nomination and makes this a clear challenge to the deletion of this particular article, then it should be relisted. Rossami (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Splash PROD is still undergoing a live test run, folks... it's a marvelous thing, but rough spots are still subject to rapid review. Any good-faith dispute is sufficient to restore for AfD. Unlike Rossami, I do read the nomination as requesting overturn -- "what a mess!" is not a theoretical-framing statement, in my view, but reflects distress at the result. Xoloz 20:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist I guess, but merging seems like a much better solution in the end. Just zis Guy you know? 21:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD per Splash. Thatcher131 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Splash and Xoloz. —Encephalon 02:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore article. The question looks relatively simple to me. Prodding an article that has previously survived AfD is specifically disallowed by Wp:prod under the heading "What this process is Not for". The applicable phrase is the following: if an article has already been through AfD and the consensus was to keep (or there was no consensus), then objections to its deletion have already been raised. Prod can not override a previous AfD. -- JJay 01:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try and clarify why I opened this request. I came across Jainism and Sikhism on the list of unwikified articles and started digging a little. I found 4 related articles Jainism and Hinduism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam, in various states of repair, but a deleted "Jainism and Judaism". Checking the logs I found that this had been through prod, but that there had been a previous AfD and survived - though with a consensus that merging all 6 articles was the best way to go. I would agree with that consensus. At this point my gut reaction was something has gone wrong here, because:

  • The general topic of Jainism and world religions seems notable and a good subject for an article
  • There was a consensus (from AfD) that the articles should be merged.
  • The deletion of the Judaism article means we can't merge.
  • Consistency is good! Either keep all 6 articles (though merged) or delete all 6.
  • An important topic, but there seems to be no subject expert who's willing to do the merge, then edit it until we get a good article.
  • Aggh!! (I wish I'd written that, instead of "what a mess")

I've been around Wikipedia for a while now, but have generally worked away quietly wikifying dead end articles, so I'm not as familiar with details of processes as most of the contributors to this discussion are. But it did seem to me that the situation I describe above was not the intention of Prod.

So I made the request as both a genuine request that the article be undeleted (so "someone" can merge it), and to flag a possible general process issue. If this is the only time that Prod and AfD come into apparent conflict, then let's forget the "theoretical question" and all get back to editing the encylopedia. However, if such situations are likely to be repeated in the future then getting some consensus on ground rules would be useful.

I would like to emphasise that I am not alleging bad faith on anyone's part. I came across a small problem, reported it in the most appropriate forum I could think of, and a sensible discussion resulted. That's wikipedia working well. If my "what a mess" cri de coeur sounded critical, then I apologise for a poor choice of words.

Now I see that Jainism and Judaism article is back. I've tagged all 6 articles for merge into clean them up to the best of my ability. I will almost certainly immeditiately tag it as needing cleanup and/or an expert help because I have no knowledge in this area!

Cje 10:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I attempted the merge, but it's not working. I've proposed AfD and attempted to clean up as much as possible. Thanks to all for patience. Cje 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 April 2006

Grophland

Deleted as being non-notable (discussion here), but there are a number of other similar articles linked from Digital_pet about games no more or less notable. In fact the Digital_pet article created a stub for Grophland which I then expanded, so if Grophland is to be removed then shouldn't they all be? No suggestion that the article was not neutral, better to fix it than delete it if it was surely. Hituro 18:01, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

  • Endorse Deletion Valid Afd. The off shoot pets seem to vary in notablity some have long articles, and others just one line stubs. Might be better to merge the small pets back together into the main article under "Minor Pets", unless they are strong (notable) enough to survive in the wild by themselves. MartinRe 17:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the criterion was not supposed to be the importance of the topic of the article but the validity of the article itself. Why is a complete article on a site with fewer users less valid than one on a site with a greater number of users if both articles follow the guidelines? Hituro 20:04, 5 April 2006 (GMT)
    • Despite some concerns, notability has long been a consideration in AfDs, consistent with WP:NOT a general knowledgebase. See Wikipedia:Notability Xoloz 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link, I wish that had been more clear before I expended the hour or so writing the article! As it says on that page, I obviously thought it was worth listing. Hituro 21:25, 5 April 2006 (GMT)
      • Oh dear...sorry about that! If you'd like to have the text back for your own purposes, I'm sure any admin will send it to your userspace for you, as long as you promise not to repost it elsewhere on WP. Xoloz 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per MartinRe; however, I see no problem with an independent redirect to the digital pet article if subject is mentioned there. Such a choice at individual editor's discretion, of course. Xoloz 19:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is valid; a mention on the Digital pet article might well deserve an external link instead of an internal link. Fetofs Hello! 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it seems strange to have all these pages saying "this is a stub, please expand it" and then remove any page that's added because it's not important enough. The stubs create the expectation that there ought to be an article, and make wikipedia look incomplete because they are not there. In fact someone else had expanded the stud, and it was scheduled to be removed because it wasn't complete enough, so I completed it, and it gets deleted for not being important enough. Shouldn't the stubs and links be removed as well? That should be a general principle in fact. Hituro 7:59, 6 April 2006 (GMT)
  • These are two separate issues. But you are right that people should not create stubs on subjects which are not actually important enough to have an article at all. I'd say that creating an article on a subject where you can't be bothered to give at least the basic context and claims to notability is a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people compared to Bob Dylan

AfD discussion here [23], with 4 keeps, 1 conditional keep, 7 deletes, and 1 merge (to Bob Dylan. Closing admin originally closed as delete, then decided to merge. That's the worst possible outcome; the AfD centered on whether the content was worthwhile -- if it wasn't, adding it (even in an abbreviated version) to another article is just sweeping the dirt under the rug. I think the Afd should have been closed as no consensus, and the article therefore kept; but deletion wouldn't bother me much either. Monicasdude 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Merge Topics can be worthwile, yet not notable enough to justify a separate article. Keep arguments for verifibilty were good, yet delete point that list of musicans that this could encompass could be large was also valid. A merge as per the last comment seems a sensible compromise, as it is a usful subtopic, but in a main article it will be pruned down to notable comparasions. MartinRe 15:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been moved to List of people likened to Bob Dylan and its redirect deleted. So the history is preserved, and the merge has, I presume, been carried out, since this new title is a redirect to [[Bob Dylan[[. -Splashtalk 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is horrible. Seriously. Listcruft of the worst kind - an uncited list of all the people who someone (of no known authority) once referred to as the Bob Dylan of foo - what the hell is that doing in an encyclopaedia? I despair. This is a classic case for a category: artists inspired by Bob Dylan, where article editors can debate the extent of influence so only the meaningful and unambiguous get added. Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse any kind of preservation of verifiable content about notable persons. `'mikka (t) 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, nothing of the content viewed as invalid by those recommending deletion was merged. If you see what the person proposing a merge said, he meant merging the information on artists Bob Dylan was compared to in his early days, which is verifiable and definitely notable. The other content was not merged, but is available in the page history. Only the redirect was deleted, although I can't see why I didn't just fix the double redirect anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, in the strictest sense, an AfD only discusses whether the content is to be kept or deleted. Once an article is closed as not deleted, the content may be merged without a vote if necessary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (kind of: it was a "no consensus" in my eyes, and the merger was a post-closing unilateral act which as Deathphoenix says anyone can do). --kingboyk 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not yet looked at the article. I am about to look at it. If it turns out that most of the names of people "compared to Bob Dylan" are accompanied by good, verifiable source citations, with a quotation cited to show how the person is being compared to Bob Dylan, I will vote to relist. Here goes. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take no action here The article has not been deleted, and is thus was not appropriate to bring here. It is currently a redirect to List of people likened to Bob Dylan. Virtually all of the names are accompanied by references. Spot checking of a couple shows that the references mostly do support the comparison. Clearly the appropriate action is to do nothing. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, it's something of a "Duelling Consensusses" situation now; the AfD was closed with a merger (abridged) into Bob Dylan. Editors on the main Dylan article (myself included) have been removing listcruft of all sorts from that article for some time, and after a bit of a dispute the consensus there seemed clearly to be to let this stand on its own. So, based on that consensus, I was WP:BOLD and undid the merger, since the AfD technically didn't end in deletion. One of the editors who feels very strongly about keeping the material then went over it for verifiability and made significant improvements. I think the current state is one folks should be able to live with as the least disputed and most likely to be stable. Monicasdude 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal speedy deleted and even blocked by NicholasTurnbull. Sheer censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCZenz (talk • contribs) at 02:29, 2006 April 5 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a project where some are entitled to censor those they disagree with. No rule allows deleting valuable content from others' user space. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User space is explicitly given to us for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. Please explain how this was valuable content - that is, how it would have contributed to the advancement of the encyclopedia. It appears to be merely a pair politically motivated userbox templates. At first glance, they do appear to be exactly the kind of "divisive and inflammatory" templates which the new speedy-deletion criterion was created to address. Rossami (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The speedy-deletion criterion for divisive and inflammatory user boxes is for user box templates, not for the user subpages. There are userboxes in the main space endorsing parties that are accused of having lead a war of aggression, how should asking for a trial be more inflammatory than that? Picking opinions you do not like and delete them is censorship. I am completely ok if all user boxes are deleted, but keeping some and removing others even from the user space is obscene. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 06:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Userboxes bore me but even I'd've deleted that one if I came across it. If there are similarly unnecessary userboxes around, tag them for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on MfD. They've already been restored because T1 does not apply, as they are in userspace and not templatespace. Also, none of the endorsements above seem to address the deletion, rather focusing on opinion about userboxes. DRV is not *fD. My opinion? Delete 'em. But they can't be speedied under T1, sorry. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted User opinion is fine, but tendentious phrasing and resource hogging (loading up 20 full-sized graphics just to make a not very original point) is out of line. I'd have no problem with "This user opposed the Iraq war" or "This user believes the Iraq war was an illegal invasion" in the usual format. We've already been through the discussion about images vs text in userboxes. ProhibitOnions 12:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the pictures was loaded up by me, they are all used on the people's article pages. The pages have been recreated as there was clearly no legitimation to delete them, and all those who set their personal preferences higher than wiki policy by supporting the deletion here set a bad light on themselves. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyrighted pictures can be eligible for the "fair use" exemption based on context. They can be legal in one context and not in another. For the most part, use in articles qualifies for the "educational use" clause. User-space does not qualify for that clause. The fact that the pictures were loaded by someone else and are in use appropriately in the article-space has no real relevance to whether or not they are allowable under copyright laws in the user-space. Regardless of how the rest of this discussion turns out, please replace all the copyvio pictures with public domain versions. Let's keep this debate focused on a single issue, please. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first one (the one with all the pictures): Keep deleted. It's a userspace page using non-free images. Clearly against WP copyright policy. For the second one (just text): List on MfD per BorgHunter. Powers 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely the copyvio should be resolved by either deleting the image or removing the reference? If an article contains a non-free image, that article would not be deleted for the crimes of its contained image, so why should it be different in userspace? MartinRe 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, it probably should. However, the page is completely useless without the images. I tried to remove the images and all it left was a contextless assertion talking about "these people" without any indication of who they were. I tried replacing the images with names but I don't know who they all are. =) Powers 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the fair use images. The ones I left are valid in userspace. Not all of them were fair use. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on MfD WP:NOT is not a valid reason under WP:CSD, and it should not be allowed to become a de facto one, which it will, if incorrectly speeding is allowed to be justified by WP:NOT or WP:SNOW. DRV is about process, not content, and this was not a valid speedy, so should be relisted. MartinRe 14:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion clearly violated policy. Shame on those who use deletion powers to censor opinions they do not agree with. De mortuis... 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no reason to censor that user page. Raphael1 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and block the troll again. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and for one to mess with Deletion Review because someone has a different political stance is to prove how little one's opinion should hold in such a naturally unpolitically-biased discussion. Chris M. 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, or keep deleting. Find somewhere else to posture. Wikipedia may be free and tolerant, but it is not for soapboxing. And also observe that the editor has reinserted images that have plainly incorrect copyright status. You don't rely on the tag, since the tag can be wrong. -Splashtalk 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Disruptive use of userspace to circumvent T1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not "circumventing t1", this is what wikipedia policy advises people to do: keep controversial opinions to their user space. There is no way you can censor that. De mortuis... 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes there is, actually. Userspace is not sacred, and does not 'belong' to the user whose name heads it. Wide latitude is granted, but not infinite latitude, particularly when it is being used to circumvent T1 as Sjakkalle observes. -Splashtalk 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The rule currently is that users are even encouraged to move controversial boxes to the user space. There is npo legitimation to remove anything there, and T1 does not apply. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and strongly encourage the new users here to read up on policy. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted It is important for me to say first that WP:NOT truly is NOT a CSD, as suggested above, and the deletions were improper. However, given my long experience at MfD, I can't see such soapboxery from a new user standing any chance at that forum, so I will follow the suggestion of WP:SNOW in this case. Xoloz 16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree that it would probably fail MfD, but if SNOW is used to justify invalid speedies, then WP:NOT becomes a de facto CSD criteria, which I believe is important not to happen. MartinRe 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, and your concern is a valid one; however, a userpage of a "newbie with an apparent agenda" is, in my view, probably the worst possible case on which to make such a stand for due process. If this matter concerned any other type of page, or if the editor had a record of a few constructive edits, I'd be right with you. Truth is, though, such userpages routinely show up on MfD for 5-7 days, thanks to the backlog, get three or so delete votes without much discussion, and are deleted with little fuss. The opinions expressed here constitute about 100 times more consideration than such a page usually merits, so I'm comfortable it has had more than a fair hearing. Xoloz 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a great believer in consistancy in process, so in some ways a case like this is the best one to point it out. Wasn't one of the pivotol free speech cases in the US decided when the speech was "distasteful" to many? If WP:NOT is not a CSD, then it should apply in all cases, and not "WP:NOT is NOT a CSD (except in 'bad' cases)" Ouch, my head hurts with all the NOT is not confusion :) Regards, MartinRe 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query CSD T1 allows speedy deletion only of divisive templates. But at what point does a user subpage (which may be transcluded) become a template? Transcluded once? Transcluded by someone other than the user? (with or without the explicit permission of the user?) Transcluded widely with the clear intention that it was designed to be used that way? To me, only the last option would pass the duck test to class it as a template, and a potentially valid deletion under CSD T1. However, this subpage has very few (three if I remember) references, so doesn't justify calling it a template in my view. And if it ain't a template, it can't be deleted under CSD T1. MartinRe 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically: "User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." jacoplane 16:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and delete the rest of the userspace documents in addition. Don't assist in the goals of the encyclopedia, aren't productive and isn't what this site is about at all. Why not use a Myspace account..? -ZeroTalk 16:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user has still not answered my original question. How do these two pages contribute to the creation of the encyclopedia? Without such explanation, this appears to be a misuse of userspace. My position is slowly hardening to delete. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic keep deleted: I've never been a part of userbox partisanship, but these are such a blatant violation of our goals here as an encyclopedia that no other solution makes sense. T1 is to be used with caution, especially where disputed, but this kind of textbook case where a page has been created and recreated for the sole purpose of divisiveness and deliberate inflammation is exactly what it's there for. I say recreated because this is also that: a recreation of deleted content from the template namespace (see Special:Undelete/Template:User_against_Iraq_war_of_aggression and Special:Undelete/Template:User_GOP_criminal), and notice now that between the template and userspace recreation, this usr has now recreated it seven times each. I'm going to go redelete them and warn him. Dmcdevit·t 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving userboxes to user space if there is controversy about them in main template space is exactly what the current policy encourages to do, and other users motivated him to do so. You are acting out of process and should be warned yourself. De mortuis... 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia and these have nothing to do with that. Rx StrangeLove 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Contributes nothing to the building of an encyclopedia, which anything in userspace is supposed to do. -Mask 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Pretty much everything's been said. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per above. I shall restrain myself from saying anything more lest I beat WP:CIVIL into a bloody pulp. Lord Bob 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, pretty much nothing left to say that hasn't been said. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While archiving the talk page for WP:CSD, I found this edit by ROGNNTUDJUU!. It appears to be a rejection of the use of userspace to circumvent the deletion of divisive templates. I am confused by the apparent inconsistency with the sentiments expressed above. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, that was way back on March 5, apparently his third whole day editing here. Evidently, his position has evolved and changed a lot in the last few weeks. Nhprman 00:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anti-american propaganda. Unfortunately, it's turning into such more and more. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. These do not help the encyclopedia at all, and one of them is potentially libellous, which should ask for nuking off the database. Also, if Tony and Splash agree on deleting something, it must be really horrible. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Deletion - This is a divisive political userbox designed to provoke debate, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The creator of the box has reverted admins' deletion several times, and has rebuffed numerous friendly attempts to explain WP policies. Side note: Deleting all political- and belief-themed boxes would end this foolish game, and not just in this case. Nhprman 00:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote one: administrator Mike_Rosoft had created the pages in order to move them from the main space. As it is not allowed at all to delete user subpages because you do not like the opinions expressed on them he unblocked the pages after they had been deleted and unblocked. The first admin who had deleted gave in. Now another one deleted. Sidenote two: I agree with your sidenote. But then go ahead and do not single out certain ones. De mortuis... 01:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. No part of writing an encyclopaedia. David | Talk 09:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speedy deletion is invalid; the page doesn't meet the criteria, because:
    1. These pages are not templates, so speedy deletion criteria for templates do not apply;
    2. Speedy deletion of a page doesn't automatically make any its re-creation a speedy candidate, it must meet speedy deletion criteria by itself; and
    3. Content which has been moved to user space (or re-created there) is excluded from being a candidate for speedy deletion as a re-post.
Undelete, candidates for speedy undeletion. Please bring it to WP:MFD if you must. - Mike Rosoft 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the new evidence, do not bother with undeletion unless a legitimate user requests it. - Mike Rosoft 08:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buxton University

I created this article because a anon. user was removing it from List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. However, it was brought to my attention that it was deleted over a year ago. Yet, it seems that it was deleted as spam/ad/unverifible. My sources are two state governments and three news agencies.

Moreover, the "school's website" is instantdegrees.com and attempts to "intimidate" (as a news report noted) anyone who makes the connection between instantdegrees.com and Buxton. Hence, I think it is important to "undelete" and it is notable enough. "Instantdegrees.com" gets almost 5,000 hits and "buxton university" gets only 700. However, since this fraud has been reported in various government and news groups I think it is worthy of wikipedia inclusion. Arbusto 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow re-creation. Call it a consumer service. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation and recommend that a redirect be set up from Instantdegree.com to Buxton. JoshuaZ 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think there are issues here with the validity of this for an article. Instantdegrees.com has an alexa of close to 300,000 [24], which hardly seems very prominent. Buxton is largely unknown and gets almost no google hits [25]- and the hits it does get are often things like William Buxton, University of London. The previous AfD raised serious questions about verifiability that look still to be valid- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buxton_University. The article as it stands includes five lines that state and restate how Buxton is not accredited, followed by a long description of news reports of people who have bought diplomas from the school. The question this raises is what else is there to say about this? If it is just a scam, and a fairly unknown scam at that, why do we need the article? While I don't support advertising, I also don't support doing an attack page on a non-entity. -- JJay 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this article is very helpful and can be expanded (I wrote it minutes ago and your claiming it "can't"). If someone puts Buxton as their university on an job application or a webpage it would be nice for the largest online encyclopedia to have information about it. This is important since Buxton's name is similiar to a respected school. Also the comments in the AfD are not relevant because this article does not read like an unverfied ad. These are three news reports and two government sources. Arbusto 03:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arbustoo seems to be our local expert on unaccredited institutions. If he thinks it is notable, I'm inclined to give him a few weeks to see what he can put together on it. JoshuaZ 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's a Washington Post article about fraud from 2004 surrounding a "Doctor" who's degree was from Buxton University.[26] In that article the Post wrote "repeated Web searches and several calls to overseas operators did not turn up a listing for a Buxton University." Wikipedia should include information about Buxton as a resource for those that want to know. Arbusto 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation. I was the one who nominated this on AfD last time, but I did so hesitantly after having attempted a rewrite. I would also like to ask for a history undelete of my version. I don't know if there was anything in it that may still be useful and lacking from Arbustoo's version, but it might be worth checking (I haven't kept an offline version). At some point in the future, I would like to see a consolidation of diploma mill articles, and more focus on the businesses and people behind the mills (which are often just temporary façades), but until then I think it is reasonable to collect the material in individual articles. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Wikipedia's articles on diploma mill articles also function as a service for consumers and as a counterweight to all the webspamming produced by the mills themselves. Tupsharru 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation. Current article is an encyclopaedic treatment of a degree mill with reasonable external coverage. Just zis Guy you know? 10:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation. Per Arbusto's 05:24, 5 April 2006 comment. If this was ONLY because people are looking for info on it, then I think that would be reason enough, because why isn't wikipedia the source of this info? But it's not just about that, it also has quite a few references. Chris M. 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation per Arbusto and JoshuaZ. Thryduulf 14:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete -- having got access to the text, this is useful information about three "fake" sources of degrees, which someone might well look up. The article also gives sources and substantiation, at leats enough to counter prima-facie pleas of innocence. -- Simon Cursitor 08:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation although sadly anyone smart enough to find this on WP is probably not going to fall for an instant degree - I'd wager my MA in "Life Experience" on it. Eusebeus 10:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation and recommend a redirect per JoshuaZ, others. Samaritan 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per jpgordon --FloNight talk 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Standard practice; as jpgordon. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per jpgordon. Guettarda 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per jpgordon. Xoloz 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Deathphoenix. Thryduulf 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted, as there's no wrongdoing here. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Just to clarify, if it hadn't already been deleted once by another admin, I wouldn't have done it, but as it had been, and was restored only temporarily, I saw no reason to bother anyone else with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Uncertified RFC. (Undelete if and only if SlimVirgin changes her mind and wants it restored). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. As I recall, the RfC was not certified, and was therefore eligible for deletion. SlimVirgin very properly did not delete it herself originally; it was deleted by Ed Poor. Reference to the RfC was made at the time of an ArbCom case involving FuelWagon, and the RfC was temporarily undeleted by an arbitrator, as it might be needed as evidence during that case. That case is long over now (and in fact did not in any way rely heavily on that RfC). I do not find it in any way inappropriate for SlimVirgin to have carried out the second deletion, and would commend her for not having done the first one. I presume that the arbitrator simply forgot to delete it a second time, and I would have been more than happy to do so. AnnH ♫ 09:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse re-deletion of temporarily undeleted uncertified RfC. Why are we even discussing this? Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Mildest imaginable sanction possible for SlimVirgin for not letting someone else do the delete and thus avoiding this discussion. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted per Xoloz. JoshuaZ 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure/Keep deleted per Xoloz --FloNight talk 17:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. I personally liked the template, but I agree with Dpbsmith. {{featured article}} was controversial, even though it is part of a stable area of Wikipedia policy; Good articles still needs some fine-tuning, so it is not appropiate to have an article-namespace template for it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Xoloz said. —Encephalon 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it dead. — Apr. 5, '06 [03:13] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Endorse deletetion Template was correctly deleted, but agree with Xoloz about a more explicit rationale in the closing statement. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, or if you're a huge fan of process, undelete it and then re-delete it per CSD:G4, because Template:Good, a similar template, was previously deleted through TFD. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, support reactivation of template when GA is approved, especially if approved soon. I disagree with Raul that supporters were not attentive to process. Myself and at least one other changed our votes to neutral from keep on reconsidering the merits of the process argument (clarified) and we both stated so. Further, I believe Raul has stated on GA discussions that he does not see a need for the GA project. Further, a number of supporters noted that process has not always been an issue with allowing very helpful tools to remain. That is a process argument. (I disagree with that point.) I wonder if many GA supporters know about the discussion here. (Since I'm fairly new here, a few months, and wonky in general but not wonked out on your policies, I'm going to post a note about this process on the GA talk page.) If the GA project is approved soon, I strongly propose that this reconsideration process be reversed and re-initiated with a clear call out to the GA project pages. I think the handling of this decision process could be much more transparent and supportive of dialog. I hope the approval of GA project and its utility has not been harmed by this process.--Vir 06:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore template. Raul654's actions were very much out-of-line as there was clearly no consensus. Cedars 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, excellent AfD closure, Thryduulff, this was definitely a tough one to close. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The Vaughan soap opera rolls on. · rodii · 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse Relisting AfD or Redoing Article 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.[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Comment This is nth time that either VaughanWatch or Eyeonvaughan or one of their group has accused me of bias. Each time, I ask for proof, or even one single example of a biased edit that I've made. Each time, they aren't able to. Above, VaughanWatch accuses me of "Whitewashing" and starting the edit wars, yet all of my edits have been to the betterment of Wiki, none of been PoV, and none have been unverifiable, unlike the vast majority of the article in question. Furthermore, I have always admitted right off the bat that I'm Alan Shefman's son, that was never a secret, and still, I have always edited NPOV while enduring the Personal Attacks. I've sat through attacks on my character, on my charitable work, and through accusations that everything I do hear is biased. It's a shame that they make these accusations, dragging my name through the mud, without ever presenting a shred of proof. pm_shef 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as Xoloz said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • keep deleted. nn, due process. `'mikka (t) 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's a better option than deleting it entirely. Frankl is more notable for his work in the sports world than in the political world. He was in the top 40 under 40, which is quite an achievement. He's the head of a sports marketing firm that he started as a teen, and an agent to many stars. He's the head of sponsorship for the International Hockey Hall of Fame http://www.ihhof.com/aboutContact.htm and an official agent for the NHL. So if the article can be redone, and the non-provable stuff omitted, that would be fine, if there's consensus. VaughanWatch 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Again, to respond to Bearcat: the notion of defending Wikipedia's rules is commendable. But this defence is forceful, arbitrary, and assumes bad faith.
    You think you can remove opposition to your and Pm_shef's campaign by bullying your opponents. And you assume that the editors have bad faith - here's what you said recently: "I believe that you're citing it in an attempt to discredit Susan Kadis because of your personal agenda against her."
    If you're really interested in an objective encyclopedia, you'd stop being an accomplice to Pm_shef's personal agenda to a) glorify his allies (Susan Kadis, Mario Racco, Alan Shefman, Mario Ferri) and b) remove his opposition (Elliott Frankl, Yehuda Shahaf, Vaughan Watch). As long as Pm_shef is on his campaign, there will be a counter-campaign. As long as there is an unjust, unfair and corrupt use of power, there will be those opposed to it. VaughanWatch 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Non-notable suburban municipal candidate, not verifiable. Most of the keep votes were from sockpuppets or people whose only edits have been on Vaughan-related pages and were quite rightly discounted by the closer (Thryduulff). Goes against consensus reached earlier after a number of AfDs that incumbent councillors should not have articles, nevermind unelected candidates. Bearcat is to be commended for his patience in attempting to deal with this mess. Luigizanasi 05:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC
  • What Sjakkalle said. —Encephalon 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Bearcat is so evidently eager to enforce the rules, will he finally enforce this one, from WP:NOT, under "Wikipedia is not a soapbox": Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so."? VaughanWatch 09:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've pointed out to you before: I did address that rule with pm_shef. Unlike you guys when a rule breach was discussed with you, pm_shef responded respectfully and politely, and took the advice seriously and in good faith. Furthermore, unlike 3RR or NPA, it isn't a rule that one can be banned for violating — it's one where the limit of an administrator's authority in the matter is to remind the offending user that there's a rule. Bearcat 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Valid closing rational given with some suspect keep votes dicounted. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only person discounting those votes is Pm_shef and his administrative assistant. If you disagree, you are labelled a "sockpuppet". VaughanWatch 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everybody in this discussion has viewed the votes as discountable with the exception of those who have a vested interest in this article. It has nothing to do with what side of the debate they happened to support, and everything to do with WP:SOCK. And re: "administrative assistant", you have been advised more than once to can the personal attacks. They stop now. Bearcat 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, keep deleted. Elected to national office? Notable. Runinng for local office? Not notable. Valid AfD decision, per policy and guidelines, no new evidence presented of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse relist with protection I am not involved in the disputes of the many articles involving people from Vaughan region, I contributed to article because, Frankl is very notable within the sports business industry his candidacy in the municipal election is irrelevant in terms of being notable enough for a article, despite the false claims that one wiki user keeps mentioning everything in the article in accurate including Frankl serving on the board of the International Hockey Hall of Fame. Frankl was listed on the International Hockey Hall of Fame article since he was elected in Nov. 2005 until one wiki user started vandalising the IHHOF article as well. This is the same wiki user that has been vandalising this article as well as many others. I wonder if it has anything to do with that this wiki user is the son of Frankl’s opponent in the municipal election?--JohnnyCanuck 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All you guys needed to do was provide a link to a page (not a Wikipedia mirror) which stated that Frankl holds a position on the board of directors. Even his own campaign page doesn't say he holds a position on the board of directors — it just says he works with them. But no matter how many times you guys were asked to provide a source, all you could do was continually assert that the IHHOF just hadn't updated their web page yet. That's an unverifiable claim. Nobody asserted that the claim was false — but as it stands, it's unverifiable. If you want it included, show a source. Bearcat 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine. Remove the board of directors reference, and any other reference that isn't definitely verifiable. Would you and others agree to a shortened, 100% verifiable article on Elliott Frankl? And is that a consensus? VaughanWatch 23:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is also NPOV and verifiably proves he is notable enough for an article then yes it would be welcome. The main reason the article was deleted was because there was no verifiable evidence he was notable - read WP:BIO for what constitutes notability. Thryduulf 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I agree, although I doubt very much that he would meet the WP:BIO criteria. I personally get fifteen times as many google hits (661) as Frankl (42), I have run for public office, I am a published author, and was recently quoted in a CBC news story, and have been on the board of a number of organizations that should have Wikipedia articles (which I do not intend to write given my personal involvement), but I don't think that any of that makes me notable enough to have a wikipedia article. What I would like to see is news stories or other verifiable evidence to show that he is notable in hockey circles. I haven't found any. So, Mr. DeBuono, instead of attacking Bearcat's integrity, you would be much better advised to devote your energies to finding evidence of Frankl's notability and presenting it here. Luigizanasi 01:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If every unverifiable claim in the old article were removed, the only claim to notability in the article would be the fact that he's a candidate in the municipal council elections. And has been repeatedly pointed out, unelected candidates in municipal council elections are not notable per WP:BIO. Bearcat 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat responded to the wiki statement "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so," by writing: "...unlike 3RR or NPA, it isn't a rule that one can be banned for violating — it's one where the limit of an administrator's authority in the matter is to remind the offending user that there's a rule."
    What's the point of having a rule if it's not enforced?
    And why did you write that you have a campaign to ensure wikipedia rules are followed, and said that "It means WP:BIO. It means WP:WEB. It means WP:NPA. It means WP:V." and not *enforce* NPA in Pm_shef's case? VaughanWatch 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not aware that user:Pm shef has made any personal attacks. If you have evidence that he has then I suggest you present it as part of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan. Thryduulf 23:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thryduulf that's exactly the point. Pm_shef doesn't need to make an actual edit that is serving his purposes. And he doesn't need to make personal attacks. The wiki policy says the he cannot EDIT any article that he is personally involved in. He was been warned about this by user:Bearcat. But Bearcat hasn't gone far enough. How this boy can have the audacity of both discrediting and removing his father's opposition from what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia is disgusting. Worst of all are those who are complicit. VaughanWatch 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody is complicit in anything. I'd be the first one to editblock pm_shef if he crossed the line, trust me. But as things stand, Frankl doesn't belong in a neutral encyclopedia until you guys can actually provide sources to verify that he meets the WP:BIO criteria of notability. If you had put even a fraction as much energy into finding legitimate sources for the article as you've been putting into whining about the family connections of an editor who hasn't committed any bannable offenses, the article might well have been keepable — but no, instead you launched a POV edit war over unverifiable claims that even Frankl's own campaign website doesn't make. Needless to say, that doesn't make me terribly inclined to trust your judgment. Bearcat 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, you'll notice that I have not edited anything related to Frankl's candidacy is the election, only things related to your other claims that are unverifiable. Furthermore, if I were to be banned for editing things that I have personal involvement in, then VaughanWatch would have to be also, as his site makes him inherently involved. The fact is though, this is another example of you guys making completely baseless accusations against me with no proof! pm_shef 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Re-doing Article As Thryduulf, Luigizanasi, and VaughanWatch have said, the article should be re-done so that it meets WP:BIO. Frankl, and his company particularly, have been mentioned in many hockey-related sites, and this is his real claim to notability. A google search for his company, Sports Rep Marketing, shows 227 hits. His company is mentioned among the great suppliers at CrossOff International's site, along with Wayne Gretzky Authentic, Jordana Sports International Inc and Great North Road (Bobby Orr). Other awards for the company can be found at these admittedly biased sites: 1 and 2. So if anyone wants to volunteer to do this, and make a verfiable article, I suggest we do it. Skycloud 02:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With respect, that Google search brings up 64 unique hits for me, which is, like, less than my dog. · rodii · 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Luigizanasi. --Ardenn 03:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Page has been marred by vandalism of Pm_shef. Keep it and expand. Poche1 18:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process Comment: The standard format for these discussions is indented bullets. Please try to stick to that format. It makes following the discussions (and later, closing them) much easier if we can stick to the standard. I've tried to standardize this particular thread. If doing so changed the meaning of your comment, please correct it. Rossami (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Vaughan voters may or may not establish his notability in the fall. Samaritan 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Admin took arguments for deletion v. keep into consideration rather than a raw vote count. Determining concensus for closing was within admin's discretion. -maclean25 03:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite admin making a decision at the time, the decision was not reflective of the notability of the subject. Poche1 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • What you describe as 'unrelated' articles, I would describe as precedent.Seabhcán 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, good analysis by Thryduulf. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Thryduulf's sound analysis. -Dawson 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep deleted; I don't really see consensus but this needs to go nevertheless. Kotepho 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 above. Tom Harrison Talk 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Thatcher131 above. -Will Beback 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Undelete per Striver. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Newsworthy is not the same as encyclopedic. There is just no encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] — Weregerbil 09:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • 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 [36]. 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Simply put: this was not closed improperly. Eusebeus 09:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admin acted correctly. David | Talk 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: per everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted per wknight94. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 and others above. --mtz206 23:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, keep deleted per Thryduulf, MONGO, Krich, Rossami and Dpbsmith, who basically said all I would have said myself. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on AFD to generate a clearer consensus. -- King of Hearts talk 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, aside from the fact that the AFD resulted in a clear delete decision, the article topic is junk in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Closing analysis of AfD discussion was correct IMO, although I think the article topic has merit for being in WP. No comment on the actual article content. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Per excellent analysis of closing admin -- Samir (the scope) 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Lack of clear consensus. The fact that some of the users may have registered recently doesn't really prove much unless you can establish they are sockpuppets. Nil Einne 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, article violates WP:NOT. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • List on AfD. Let it get its week in the sun before it's deleted.  RasputinAXP  c 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/list not a speedy. --Rob 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW. (And I'm a huge fan.) John Reid 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 09:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Clearly violates WP:CSD. Take to AfD if within the relevant percentage majority. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Relist per Kcordina's above comments. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse per Sam Blanning and MartinRe. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • [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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per User:JzG's comments above. --Hetar 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per above; perfectly within process, and the right thing to do given previous AfD discussin. Eusebeus 10:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and transwikify to Striverpedia. Thatcher131 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per User:Dpbsmith's [1] test logic. [37]. 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)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Keep deleted and salted. I think it's been through plenty of deletion processes. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - per above. Raphael1 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Germen. Concern that the contentious term may have been improperly deleted. It's not used as much as -phobia but has been used by a number of websites and pundits to describe perceived obsequious pandering to Muslim demands. (In this sense it is similar to philo-Semitism.) I am expressing no opinion here as to the merits of the term, but it deserves more discussion; a less hasty solution might have been to redirect it to Islamophobia and describe it as a pendant to the more common term there. ProhibitOnions 21:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion and relist on AfD The first deletion following AfD was valid. The second G4 speedy deletion in the midst of another AfD was not valid. The article as it stood at the time of deletion was clearly not recreated content of a substantially identical copy of the deleted material. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [38]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Encephalon, who manages to hit the nail on the head, as always. Xoloz 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - Whereas Wikipedia internet nerds may find this little incident newsworthy, the world does not. - Hahnchen 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted attack issue aside, wholly unnotable. Eusebeus 11:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I allowed to endorse my own deletion? Disregard if not. Stifle 11:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, for the reasons stated (quite well) by Encephalon. -Colin Kimbrell 15:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Encephalon's excellent analysis. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Encephalon and Just zis Guy. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Overturn Nuffle 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Undelete Chad78 This should be left as it applies to current events, which are a part of Wikipedia. 04:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and God help us all if Wikipedia becomes the soapbox of choice for 1337 5|@5hd0+ n!nj@5 who need yet another place where they can sneer at people. --phh 17:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, `'mikka (t) 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete, notable by virtue of his position, plenty of verifiable information that can be kept. NPOV problems can be fixed. He meets the following WP:BIO criteria: "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" and "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Angr (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Significant press coverage and lots of verifiable information. Important person to a local community and at least one online community. — David Remahl 05:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

27 March 2006

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)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game)

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)[reply]

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

18 March 2006

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Vonderplanitz gets 32,400 Google hits [39] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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 [40] and one from the L.A. Times [41].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Relist (or basically, Undelete). Why is AV not being considered a "real" person of note in the raw food arena? Five minutes online reveals:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, no notability. Two non-notable books, published by a shadowy company which might be AV himself, since the only website associated with it is an earthlink page which is dedicated to his books. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 March 2006

Gilles Trehin

  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

  • Comment: The article on Urville has been overwhelmingly deleted in a recently closed AfD vote. Harro5 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This already went through RfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep deleted all cross-space redirects should start with WP: prefix. --Doc ask? 11:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • undelete this harmless redirect please Yuckfoo 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Tony and Doc. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Undelete; a few cross-space redirects are okay. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently concluded

  1. James H. Fetzer, original speedy deletion of article upheld, recreated redirect left in place. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Portuguese Discovery of Australia, delisted early—inappropriate for deletion review, as page version was never deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Doorknob (game), deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Betty chan, kept deleted. Copy of article reposted on talk page moved to User:Snob/Betty Chan; talk page deleted per CSD G8.14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Young Writers Society, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mike Murdock, deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. David R. Smith, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Stir, deltetion overturned, relisted on AFD where there was a consensus to keep. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. California State Route 85, status quo maintained. 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Control Monger, restored, relisted for AFD. 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. MPOVNSE, kept deleted. 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Omar Q Beckins, kept deleted. 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. The Go, deletion overturned. 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. John Fullerton, deletion endorsed. 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Imaginary antecedent kept deleted; sadly (and very surprisingly) appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia:No original research; completely unreferenced. 14:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Template:People_stub restored, unprotected, listed for consideration on WP:SFD. [42] 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Myg0t overturned and undeleted. 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. 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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=47543168"