Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zoe (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 7 June 2006 (→[[User:AKMask/log]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Deletion review/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.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review

Proposed deletions

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

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Deletion review/History only undeletion

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 October 17}}</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 October 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 17|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 policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines 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".

07 June 2006

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [1] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Wikipedia. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
  • The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

  • We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

  • Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JDtalkemail 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
  • Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
  • Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JDtalkemail 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB[T][C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JDtalkemail 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPStalk to me 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League player lists

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.
  • I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
      • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [2]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

  • Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
  • Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
      However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
  • Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
  • Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sam, Sam I am.
I do not like this censor sham.
Keep deleted in user space.
Keep deleted in any place.
Keep deleted from the socks.
Keep deleted says userbox.
Keep deleted here or there,
Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

  • Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
    I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.[reply]
  • Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Closing this discussion as "transwiki" was within reasonable discretion for the closing admin. The fact that the target project later decided that the content did not fit their inclusion criteria does not mean that Wikipedia must change its own criteria. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (E@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? &#0151; JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[7]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? &#0151; JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[8].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. &#0151; JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. &#0151; JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [9], [10], [11], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. (Personal attack removed) of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -Mask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -Mask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Regarding "Male Unbifurcated Garment", (the article should have been named "Male unbifurcated garments") which was deleted after this AFD, and the subsequent deletion review. I closed the AfD as delete (a decision that I believe reflected the AfD consensus), and for which someone started a silly RFC against me. I believe the AfD and DRV discussions were unneccesarily perturbed by personal opinions (especially by those supporting the article). While editing Men's fashion freedom (which is propaganda for a non-notable movement, and should be deleted), I searched for Male unbifurcated garments and found that this is the most common term used to refer collectively to kilts, caftans, lungis, tupenus, dashikis, hakamas etc, for men. I think the reason why consensus was to delete the article is because it was being used by proponents of "Men's fashion freedom" to popularize their cause, and that those who "voted" against intended to deprive them of using wikipedia for propaganda – meanwhile, useful encyclopedic information went lost. I cannot safely revive this article (even if severely rewritten) without some consensus. I therefore request that the article be taken back to AfD. The previous AfD, after all, did have good arguments to keep, and the DRV was doomed from the beginning because of certain somewhat incivil artitudes. --Ezeu 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Requesting speedy close. Male unbifurcated garments has been created. --Ezeu 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recreating deleted content at a different title merely makes it necessary to speedy-delete the recreated page. By the way, the manual of style says that articles should be created at the singular anyway. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was deleted after a deletion vote on the criteria that the term was not very popular but the phenomenon is very common. It was sent for a deltion review for undeletion where the deletion was not reverted. I propose renaming and redirecting of the article to a new name ("Man-Skirt") which was found by some participants in the votes to be more common. So vote Redirect for supporting the motion , that is to rename and redirect to Man-Skirt, and Keep Deleted for opposing the motion that is to keep the article deleted.

Unitedroad 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I does not matter to me. MUGs, Manskirts, man's skirts, male skirts, whatever. This needs to be mentioned somewhere. Just as I suspected (and the reason why I brought this here), it does not matter in which way one tries to create an article describing this particularity, it will be speedily deleted merely out of principle. --Ezeu 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is to question deletion process. AFD, community consensus, has agreed it should be deleted. Therefore, keep deleted. NSLE (T+C) at 08:13 UTC (2006-06-03)
  • Keep Deleted Didn't we just close a DRV on this? Fan1967 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: It's a tunic, and it's what everyone wore before pants -- "shirt" <-Anglo-Saxon "skirt" <-Old Norse, same garment. <shrug> No undeletion. Geogre 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as there is no reason for resurrecting it under a NEW neologism. If there is material in it that is of value to merge elsewhere, ask an admin to give you a userification. There is no need for multiple DRVs that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and close this DRV - the last one ended less than two weeks ago. You can just write a new article under a new name if you want this to be on WP, there's no need to undelete this just to rename and rewrite it... - ulayiti (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Only 755 GHits? It's not just a neologism, it's a wikineologism. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Validly deleted in process, confirmed by deletion review. Article had no references at all. Sources meeting the reliable source guidelines have still not been cited, nor convincing evidence that the term is in widespread use. Nothing has changed significantly since the AfD or DRV. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The term has very limited currency outside the "male fashion freedom" community. Actually, virtually no currency outside of that community as far as I can tell, and I looked into it in some considerable detail. The current situation, where it is discussed in men's fashion freedom seems entirely sensible. I would support a protected redirect (protected because the proponents of the term are on a mission to promote it, as evidence prior debates). I would also take issue with it being the most widely used term: excluding kiltmen and WP yields something over 8000 ghits for "male unbifurcated garments", but repeating the search with "skirts for men" gets over 13k ghits. Even within the highly restricted locus of those seeking to discuss this topic (which is primarily Western, since they are normal in many countries) I see no compelling evidence that this is the most widely used term. Few if any of the mainstream articles on celebrities who briefly followed the fashion trend for skirts mention the term, it appears to be used solely in the context of the fashion freedom movement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. Numerous print references, websites, and manufacturers confirm usage (as I have pointed out over and over). These references have nothing to do with the fashion freedom movement. --JJay 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed you did, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment. I checked your New York Times reference, Feuer, Alan (2004) "Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder," and it checks out. Changing vote accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that what the article says, as far as I recall, is that the movement calls them that, not that they are widely called that. "male unbifurcated garment" (in quotes) still gets under 500 ghits, and there is still, despite the incessant protestations of its proponents, no evidence of its widespread mainstream use, still less that this is the usual term for these garments. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... and "male unbifurcated garments" gets 8,540 ghits. --Ezeu 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you click through the first few pages of these results, Google discards nearly all of them as "very similar", leaving only 42. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You also find that a good many trace back to the top hit, the kiltmen community. Which appears to be where it originated, and where the advocates come from. Most of those hits are forum posts anyway. Despite all the arm-waving, thew advocates of this term have yet to provide a single credible reference showing that this is the generally used term to describe these garments, or giving any significant usage outside of the small men's fashion freedom community in which context we have pretty much its sole mention in the mainstream press. One article saying that this group uses the term is not really enough, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, undelete, and relist on AfD. Or, those interested can create a new article under this title that cites sources, presents a more neutral, less promotional point of view, and does not read like a personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, we don't need to keep discussing this ad nauseum. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, no process violation apparent, the new references are not really convincing of the notability of this term. Incidentally, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. (Just stumbled across it via a cleanup of High-heeled shoe, which until recently also featured an exhortation on why men should feel good about wearing shirts...) Sandstein 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was here last week. --Rory096 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. JJay did some excellent research in the last Deletion Review discussion documenting the uses of this phrase. I concluded from that research that this neologism is in infrequent use primarily in human interest stories about this small group of activists. No new evidence has been presented convincing me that this decision should be revisited yet. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Rossami. Several advocates of deletion from the original AfD (including me) have indicated that they were aware of JJay's sources. In the AfD/DRV discussion of this topic, it's been noted that, for most men who wear unbifurcated garments outside the Western world, they're just normal clothing. Thus, I suggest that anyone who wants to write about this in an NPOV, non-soapboxy way, could find a way to fit it into the article Clothing or its offshoots. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete - This term is in widespread use among some circles. Wiki includes detailed articles on information specific to very small circles, yet bans information that's in considerably wider use simply because it offends someone's sensibilities? MUGs isn't a new fad - it's the continuation of what men have been wearing for tens of thousands of years, and what approximately a third of men throughout the world routinely wear today. If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein. If they apply to MUGs, they apply elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.180.34 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    This is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole which has infested every previous discussion of this topic. You say that if we delete this term used by a very small group of people and scoring a negligible number of unique Google hits, then we must also delete a word used by millions every day. Assertions like that make it almost impossible to take this subject even slightly seriously: the actions of the proponents of this term have consistently given the impression of zealots with little or no connection to reality, and this is no exception. Just zis Guy you know? 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per JJay. Clearly notable.  Grue  12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So a single newspaper article which notes that a small group uses a given neologism is sufficient to make it clearly notable? Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really need to ask you to stop spreading misinformation as you complain about "ludicrous hyperbole" and "zealots" with "no connection to reality". After stating repeatedly that no sources exist [12], [13], [14], and failing to respond or blatantly ignoring any of the sources offered [15] [16] ,you seem to have now recognized one. Since I know of at least 25 print sources, and a number of manufacturer websites, here are a few links you might find enlightening: The Scotsman, NY Times, Pittsburgh Tribune,Lucire fashion magazine Village Voice- Para 2, New York Magazine, Little India magazine, Out in the Mountains- book review, Reno Gazette, etc. etc. Of course this does not include many sources I can not easily link to such as Newsday, The Economic Times (India) or some of the Australian print sources. The following manufacturer sites also sell unbifurcated garments as prominently shown on their websites: Macabi, Macabi again Utilikilts. This obviously ignores the widespread usage on blogs and the web. The extent of the "notability" of the trend can certainly be debated...and as shown by the links, the term can vary depending on the source. But please stop the nonsense about google hits, zealots, no reliable sources, arm waving, and the like. --JJay 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJay, do you not think that the statement If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein is ludicrous hyperbole? How many references to skirt, dress and pants are there? How many to the term "male unbifurcated garment"? We've been assured that Googling for MUG is a good test for its currency despite the fact that the vast majority of hits are for the ceramic containers. I have seen no credible evidence that this term has any currency outside the (very small) men's fashion freedom movement, and it was in that context that the few mentions we have were made. Right now it is covered in men's fashion freedom, which contextualises it nicely. It has been deleted through valid process and after much discussion, and that deletion has already been confirmed once. No new evidence is being presented here as far as I can tell, it's just a case of them keep asking until they get what they want. Sorry, but that pushes my parental "no means no" button. The clincher for me is that in all the coverage of the prominent men who have been seen wearing skirts (Beckham, Cruise, Gaultier etc.) this term is pretty much absent. The only references I can find linking Beckham to the term, for example, come from the usual source: kiltmen. It is their private conceit which has no real currency. They really really want it to have some currency (read: protologism) but as yet it has pretty much none outside of themselves, and WP:NOT the place to fix that. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. A silly, non-notable term. Also the fact that a DRV on this just ended not too long ago. WarpstarRider 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

02 June 2006

Template:User hate profanity

Speedy deletion. The text of the userbox says "This user does not tolerate profanity." This'd refer to user conduct, since wikipedia is not censored. How is this divisive? Is there a danger of an anti-profanity cabal forming? The userbox is good in highlighting a form of incivility that wikipedia can do without. I'm not a big userbox warrior, so please take this request seriously. Andjam 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Divisive

Penis banding

I have no idea what this page is about, but User:JoeCool722 requested a deletion review. I've asked him to comment on what the page was about. // The True Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis banding. No idea what it is, probably don't want to know. Fan1967 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain until I can see the conecpt of the page. If it's gone through an AfD already (per below), then I agree with it and endorse delete. // The True Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The AFD was properly concluded and this was a valid deletion. As for the article text, I'm assuming that this - http://www.answers.com/topic/penis-banding - from answers.com is the text of the article, by the way. Most of the google hits are related to each other, so it strikes me as a non-notable neologism unless there is evidence otherwise. BigDT 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletionTimothy Usher 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm putting my faith in the AfD determining this one to be a neologism. --StuffOfInterest 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This is the first Wikipedia article I've written. I decided to write the article because there is a noticable lack of information on this topic. This is a not uncommon practice that is performed in BDSM and other contexts. I supposed my confusion over the deletion is that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles related to Body Modification and BDSM. During the initial deletion discussion someone mentioned that there was not a large amount of supporting evidence that this pratice exists. While that was part of my original reasoning to create the article, there are other articles from reputable sources like the following link [17]. I must say I'm very surprised at the apparant lack of open-mindedness. The article was put up a while ago, and even had various edits from other users as well as people linking to it. I don't feel that just because some folks may not understand or agree with a practice is a reason for removal. I do not feel that this article is out of line with numerous other Wikipedia articles, i.e. Transscrotal_piercing, Suspension_(body_modification), Body_nullification, Penis_removal. The Body Nullification article makes an interesting point regarding how many less mainstream practices have become more well known as people are discovering each other as a result of the Internet. That said, as a member of the BDSM community, I can say that this is not an unheard of activity. It's typically more commonly performed on the testicles, but frequnetly done to the penis. It's even discussed in the book "Family Jewels, A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment." Another consideration is that within the BDSM Community many things are passed on via word of mouth. Many people meet at various BDSM related gatherings and are taught various techniques and practices that are not necessarily well documented. Hence my effort to try to take some time and better document this practice. We run into a frustrating Catch-22 where where Wikipedia prefers to have "verifiable" sources, yet, until someone writes something on the topic, it's not "verifiable." There's a bit of a flaw in logic as just because something is not easily verifiable does not necessarily indicate that it's not a valid practice. However, just because someone writes something in a book really doesn't prove that practice to be valid. As mentioned, the BDSM community is historically been a word of mouth type of community as it has not always been well accepted. While I don't have the resources/time to try to write an actual book on more advanced BDSM related techniques, I felt sharing some knowledge of a not well documented practice would have been well received by Wikipedia. JoeCool722 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no catch-22 at all. Wikipedia deliberately chooses NOT to be a primary source. In fact, it is considered a tertiary source. In other words, Wikipedia will report on things that have been clearly documented and verified elsewhere. Wikipedia does not serve as the primary, initial source for anything. Fan1967 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BME website is referenced as an ezine in an existing Wikipedia Article - BME_(website), As per the link in my original post, Banding is referenced in the encyclopedia section of BME as well as numerous other areas of the site. I know we're getting into a fuzzy area regarding "verifiability" but I think a lot of the existing articles in this category are not extensively documented and therefore "verifiable."
  • The fact that there is no information on this "out there" is the very reason there cannot be an article on WP, as stated above and elsewhere. WP:NOR refers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I must say this is more than a little disappointing. I had hoped that Wikipedia as a group would be more open-minded. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the practice, or take part in it. But I don't think it should be censored because some folks don't understand it. I would ask that the decision on this article be made based on policy as opposed to opinion. I'm working on tracking down some additional verifiable resources. Please let me know the best way to proceed to ensure this article remains listed in compliance with policy. JoeCool722 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I've cited a book and the BME website that has been around for more than 10 years and is recognized by Wikipedia. Most people familiar with the Body Modification subject would recognize BME and Shannon who runs BME as an expert resource on the topic. Will the items I've already cited suffice? Or do I need to locate more? I know there were a few more books that had references to banding in them. Please Advise JoeCool722 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD arguments were convincing, and there has been no error in procedure. Still not verifiable, as referencing a website in its entirety is not sufficient - we need specific links or quotes regarding the existence and notability of this activity. Sandstein 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually the first reference is to a specific page in BME regarding banding. I also cited a book. I believe this is getting away from the spirit of Wikipedia and becoming a push to squash something that is not understood. What I really don't understand is there are a dozen other articles in similar subject areas on Wikipedia that are not citing anything and they've been there for a while. I'm really surprised that there is no leniency allowed.

  • Relist First let me thank the administrators. I’ve had a delightful time going through all my books to find resources for them. It’s always fun to re-read favorite books. Many of these can be bought on Amazon. I’ve also included an article from a well known in the BDSM scene magazine. It has also been brought to my attention that Freud covered some of the penis binding (they didn’t have elastrators in his time) in his works. While he considered fetishism a deviant practice the recent American Psychological Association has declared it not to be so since the 1970’s.
If there is a vote I believe the comments “ Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” and “Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” should not apply as these are clearly bias and not related to actual policy.
Here are a few books that discuss penile banding and related Cock and Ball Tortures:
  • The Family Jewels: A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment (Paperback) by Hardy Haberman
  • Intimate Invasions: the erotic ins & outs of enema playby M.R. Strict
  • Female Dominance: Rituals and Practices by Claudia Varrin
  • Leatherfolk by Mark Thompson
  • Tony DeBlase aka Fledermaus 1993, 'Male Genitorture (Also known as Cock and Ball Torture, CBT)' in Sandmutopia Guardian 14, pp14-22
  • Trust, the Hand Book: A Guide to the Sensual and Spiritual Art of Handballing by Bert Herrman
  • Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
  • -- 1953, 'Three Essays on Sexuality' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol VII, London: Hogarth
  • -- 1953a, 'Fetishism' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol XXI (written in 1927), London: Hogarth
  • Undelete, because of all the people saying "I trust the original AfD" (what do you think the Deletion review process is for then?) and because this is clearly a well-documented practice in its own cultural niche. &#0151; JEREMY 15:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been my frustration from the beginning. I missed the initial deletion review as I got busy with work. My wife went to send the link to someone and realized it was gone. Most of the comments in the initial deletion discussion and in this deletion review have been blanket agreements citing the fact that an AfD took place. I would rather have people look at this and assess it for themselves. And of course there are those that just say it should be deleted because it's "Sick" I don't think an individuals personal comfort on a subject should be related to it's inclusion in Wikipedia. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been asking for this from the beginning. This was my first article that I've ever written for Wikipedia. I didn't back it up as I didn't realize it could just be deleted without a chance to go change it back. I read somewhere that there is some process in place to restore the article temporarily during a deletion review, but I don't know how else to go about requesting this. Any assistance from some of the more seasoned Wikipedians would be appreciated. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

01 June 2006

Template:User no notability

NN This user hates notability and how it is used mercilessly on AfD as policy.


Here is the template, why was it deleted? No one posted anything on the TfD page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User no notability. It is a valid, useable userbox that shouldnt be deleted, just like ones that state POV can be used in userboxes or ones that state that they are inclusionist... Also, there was a TfD that reflected consensus, but this UB was speedy deleted and no message was left on the TfD page. Sorry for the ditto. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete as bad-faith deletion. --Disavian 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy, template space is for encyclopedic endeavors, not the advocacy of eliminationg them. Userfy, subst, let people keep it, but get it out of encyclopedic space. -Mask 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not policy. You people are the reason this UB was created. Because you don't understand: Essays carry so much less weight than policy. There's an essay saying that all TV show summarys should be deleted. It must be put into effect since you consider essays policy. Besides, it was not a CSD. There is a TfD going on about it that reflected a Keep consensus, but the deleter ignored it, deleted it, AND didn't even close the TfD debate! -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted This one clearly has the potential to divide Wikipedians and to inflame Wikipedians, which makes it a T1 CSD candidate. But I did learn something from my pre-conclusion research. Of course, someone should implement the German solution on it. GRBerry 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment after more thought and some more discussion. The most troubling word is "hates". But there clearly could be versions that would not be inflammatory. So the salting of the earth is too strong a response - overturn only the salting and put a warning on the talk page of the template that language like "disagrees with", "rejects", or "would like to out that notability is only an essay, not a guideline or policy" is acceptable, but that vehement language like "hates" and "mercilessly" is inappropriate. GRBerry 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as bad-faith userbox. Obviously divisive in intent, probably speediable. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as the subject it addresses is not notable.Timothy Usher 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - not notable per Timothy Usher. ;) (Actually, it is argumentative, divisive, etc.) Metamagician3000 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - I am almost convinced that this should exist, because unlike the vast majority of userboxen that have no relevance to Wikipedia (or at least should not), like "This User is Christian" or "This user licks Goats", this is actually relevant to wikipedia and is the kind of content that fits well on a userpage. It's not exactly the same kind of bumper-sticker crap that most userboxes are. It is still divisive though.. --Improv 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a milder one? Proposal:
NN This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh no, that's still far too divisive and inflammatory, don't you know? Consider this:
NN This user is interested in the critical examination of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

—Ashley Y 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why? That one is like a censored version thats too positive. Why not this:
NN This user is against the views of the notability essay.

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed
  • relist why can't he have an Article i mean why can Syed not have one but michelle dewberry have one, syed has done lots of things aswell as appearing on The Apprentice he appeared in the Celebrity world cup sixes and he is the head of IT People. Bobo6balde66 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. No new evidence has been presented that would suggest that a new discussion would reach a different decision. Endorse closure (content deleted, protected redirect). Rossami (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --Disavian 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Kimchi.sg 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure — unanimous original AfD, and good content already included in The Apprentice (UK series 2). No good reasons have been presented for re-creating this article - the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to merit his own article. A redirect already ensures a reader entering his name can find a brief biography on the relevant article. The fact that Michelle Dewberry has an article is not a reason to undelete this — if her notability is in question that article should be listed at WP:AFD. Finally, IT People, his company was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT People, so the fact that he is the CEO of a company deemed non-notable should be no reason for undeleting this article either. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Reality shows have, by now I hope, settled down: if the contestant becomes notable aside from the appearance, then the person is notable. If the person is merely one face among many squabbling and scratching, then the person should be discussed at the show's article. When the person breaks away from the show in fame, then the article breaks away from the show. This individual has not, at least yet. Geogre 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --mboverload@ 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I watched The Apprentice, enjoyed it, and I absolutely agree with Mboverload: I still don't care. If he ever becomes independently notable, then he gets his own article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Shin Do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_Shin_Do

Undelete Ho Shin Do I worked hard to put up good information on the page and added more info to give backing on the origins of the martial art. I feel that the style itself is worthy of being listed here and train in it with the best of intentions for the founders. The martial art has legitimate roots in Korean martial arts, and I sincerely hope that the deleted can be re-considered. Frankiefuller 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)frankiefuller, 03:33 (EST), 6-10-06. I say Overturn and Undelete[reply]

  • endorse closure. This was a valid AfD with a unanimous "delete" result, I could see no significant and substantial differences between the version as of the deletion nomination and the version as of the afd closure (with the exception of the picture being added, which is not enough), so there was no additional information that was not available to the early voters that may have made them change their minds. Thryduulf 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Thryduulf. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, so what is necessary to make it stay? I could put in a great amount of detail about the art itself and the structure of the system. Man you guys are so stubborn, there are many more sub-par articles out there than this. What makes you guys particular academic experts here, and how many of you are martial arts scholars? Heck, I could get deep into the philosophical side of this if you like. Let's go, baby, I love debates. Politics, after all, is what I'm studying for my doctoral program.Frankiefuller 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Man, people commit murder all the time, why do you have to arrest me?" The existence of poor articles does not justify the existence of poor articles; in this case, the lack of notability of the subject makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Objectivist-C 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not academic experts. We are reporters of academic experts. If there are experts out there discussing this fellow, and if the art has made sufficient splash to be discussed in multiple contexts, then there should be an article. The presence of an article doesn't make something good, and the absence doesn't make it bad; there is no judgment of worth, only of need. Geogre 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted per FrankiefullerQuizQuick 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now or userfy with leave to present when appropriate - here is the article from google cache - [18] - the fact that there are multiple schools teaching this kind of Tae Kwon Do says to me that it is notable. The only problem I see with the article is that it is entirely original research. For that reason and that reason alone, I believe that the deletion is appropriate, but if Frankiefuller would like to rewrite or modify the article as to include other references, I don't see any reason why the subject is not permissible. BigDT 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy with leave to present when appropriate. Let frankiepoo show you that the article is not original research. I can show that the wheel is not being re-invented and can point out how the art has borrowed from several distinctly Korean arts. I am going to go ahead and try modifying the information and then presenting it after I can authenticate the specific data to show non-original research.72.145.93.79 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Frankiefuller[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This was a unanimous deletion discussion. While this group may and probably does have "legitimate roots in Korean martial arts", no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that this is significant offshoot deserving of a separate article-page. No evidence has been presented to justify overturning the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06
Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06
Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

It passed its original deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency, but when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. Daniel Bush 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if Danny is the person who deleted it, why did User:Sean Black salt the earth? GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --Improv 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wasn't this thing deleted via WP:OFFICE? If so, WP:SNOW--Rayc 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my goodness, the second AfDs closing admin's note of procedural irregularities is certainly true. That is a major refactoring from when I last saw the page. (I was the first to make a non-comment response.) I wish, however, that the closing admin had immediately opened a third AFD... It was in AFD via a community decision. I think Resend to AFD is the appropriate outcome, but it is a borderline call, concluded this way because process is important and because the refactoring appears not to have been done by the articles author or one of the new voices brought in. GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, should probably go to AfD again, but definitely undelete it. This abuse of process has got to stop. We have rules here—follow them. Everyking 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just taking the piss. Undelete, do not relist anywhere, and censure the admin who deleted it against consensus. There is no point having shitloads of policy documents and votes on this, that and the other if privileged users can just ignore them out of personal animus. Also censure the admin who has protected the page. This is an egregious abuse of his powers that has become too common these days. The consensus was that there should be an article: protecting it so that there cannot be is completely unacceptable. Apologies for not signing in. -- Grace Note.
  • SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. --Col. Hauler 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. nn blog, clear sentiment to delete among non-sock, non-meatpuppets. We should stop wasting our time, and stop allowing the associated harrassment of legitimate editors over this. NoSeptember talk 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please list all of these sock or meat puppets--or if the list would be shorter everyone who's opinions you find valid? Yes, there are those that I would call foopuppets on the keep side, but there are also several legitimate users. Kotepho 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Puppets are listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach



Recently concluded

2006 June

  1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
  38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
  45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
  62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
  86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

Archives

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.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Deletion review/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.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review

Proposed deletions

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

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Deletion review/History only undeletion

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 October 17}}</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 October 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 17|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 policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines 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".

07 June 2006

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [29] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Wikipedia. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
  • The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

  • We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

  • Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JDtalkemail 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
  • Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
  • Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JDtalkemail 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB[T][C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JDtalkemail 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPStalk to me 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League player lists

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.
  • I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
      • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [30]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

  • Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
  • Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
      However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
  • Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
  • Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sam, Sam I am.
I do not like this censor sham.
Keep deleted in user space.
Keep deleted in any place.
Keep deleted from the socks.
Keep deleted says userbox.
Keep deleted here or there,
Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

  • Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
    I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.[reply]
  • Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Closing this discussion as "transwiki" was within reasonable discretion for the closing admin. The fact that the target project later decided that the content did not fit their inclusion criteria does not mean that Wikipedia must change its own criteria. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (E@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? &#0151; JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[35]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? &#0151; JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[36].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. &#0151; JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. &#0151; JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [37], [38], [39], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. (Personal attack removed) of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -Mask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -Mask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Regarding "Male Unbifurcated Garment", (the article should have been named "Male unbifurcated garments") which was deleted after this AFD, and the subsequent deletion review. I closed the AfD as delete (a decision that I believe reflected the AfD consensus), and for which someone started a silly RFC against me. I believe the AfD and DRV discussions were unneccesarily perturbed by personal opinions (especially by those supporting the article). While editing Men's fashion freedom (which is propaganda for a non-notable movement, and should be deleted), I searched for Male unbifurcated garments and found that this is the most common term used to refer collectively to kilts, caftans, lungis, tupenus, dashikis, hakamas etc, for men. I think the reason why consensus was to delete the article is because it was being used by proponents of "Men's fashion freedom" to popularize their cause, and that those who "voted" against intended to deprive them of using wikipedia for propaganda – meanwhile, useful encyclopedic information went lost. I cannot safely revive this article (even if severely rewritten) without some consensus. I therefore request that the article be taken back to AfD. The previous AfD, after all, did have good arguments to keep, and the DRV was doomed from the beginning because of certain somewhat incivil artitudes. --Ezeu 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Requesting speedy close. Male unbifurcated garments has been created. --Ezeu 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recreating deleted content at a different title merely makes it necessary to speedy-delete the recreated page. By the way, the manual of style says that articles should be created at the singular anyway. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was deleted after a deletion vote on the criteria that the term was not very popular but the phenomenon is very common. It was sent for a deltion review for undeletion where the deletion was not reverted. I propose renaming and redirecting of the article to a new name ("Man-Skirt") which was found by some participants in the votes to be more common. So vote Redirect for supporting the motion , that is to rename and redirect to Man-Skirt, and Keep Deleted for opposing the motion that is to keep the article deleted.

Unitedroad 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I does not matter to me. MUGs, Manskirts, man's skirts, male skirts, whatever. This needs to be mentioned somewhere. Just as I suspected (and the reason why I brought this here), it does not matter in which way one tries to create an article describing this particularity, it will be speedily deleted merely out of principle. --Ezeu 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is to question deletion process. AFD, community consensus, has agreed it should be deleted. Therefore, keep deleted. NSLE (T+C) at 08:13 UTC (2006-06-03)
  • Keep Deleted Didn't we just close a DRV on this? Fan1967 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: It's a tunic, and it's what everyone wore before pants -- "shirt" <-Anglo-Saxon "skirt" <-Old Norse, same garment. <shrug> No undeletion. Geogre 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as there is no reason for resurrecting it under a NEW neologism. If there is material in it that is of value to merge elsewhere, ask an admin to give you a userification. There is no need for multiple DRVs that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and close this DRV - the last one ended less than two weeks ago. You can just write a new article under a new name if you want this to be on WP, there's no need to undelete this just to rename and rewrite it... - ulayiti (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Only 755 GHits? It's not just a neologism, it's a wikineologism. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Validly deleted in process, confirmed by deletion review. Article had no references at all. Sources meeting the reliable source guidelines have still not been cited, nor convincing evidence that the term is in widespread use. Nothing has changed significantly since the AfD or DRV. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The term has very limited currency outside the "male fashion freedom" community. Actually, virtually no currency outside of that community as far as I can tell, and I looked into it in some considerable detail. The current situation, where it is discussed in men's fashion freedom seems entirely sensible. I would support a protected redirect (protected because the proponents of the term are on a mission to promote it, as evidence prior debates). I would also take issue with it being the most widely used term: excluding kiltmen and WP yields something over 8000 ghits for "male unbifurcated garments", but repeating the search with "skirts for men" gets over 13k ghits. Even within the highly restricted locus of those seeking to discuss this topic (which is primarily Western, since they are normal in many countries) I see no compelling evidence that this is the most widely used term. Few if any of the mainstream articles on celebrities who briefly followed the fashion trend for skirts mention the term, it appears to be used solely in the context of the fashion freedom movement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. Numerous print references, websites, and manufacturers confirm usage (as I have pointed out over and over). These references have nothing to do with the fashion freedom movement. --JJay 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed you did, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment. I checked your New York Times reference, Feuer, Alan (2004) "Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder," and it checks out. Changing vote accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that what the article says, as far as I recall, is that the movement calls them that, not that they are widely called that. "male unbifurcated garment" (in quotes) still gets under 500 ghits, and there is still, despite the incessant protestations of its proponents, no evidence of its widespread mainstream use, still less that this is the usual term for these garments. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... and "male unbifurcated garments" gets 8,540 ghits. --Ezeu 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you click through the first few pages of these results, Google discards nearly all of them as "very similar", leaving only 42. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You also find that a good many trace back to the top hit, the kiltmen community. Which appears to be where it originated, and where the advocates come from. Most of those hits are forum posts anyway. Despite all the arm-waving, thew advocates of this term have yet to provide a single credible reference showing that this is the generally used term to describe these garments, or giving any significant usage outside of the small men's fashion freedom community in which context we have pretty much its sole mention in the mainstream press. One article saying that this group uses the term is not really enough, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, undelete, and relist on AfD. Or, those interested can create a new article under this title that cites sources, presents a more neutral, less promotional point of view, and does not read like a personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, we don't need to keep discussing this ad nauseum. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, no process violation apparent, the new references are not really convincing of the notability of this term. Incidentally, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. (Just stumbled across it via a cleanup of High-heeled shoe, which until recently also featured an exhortation on why men should feel good about wearing shirts...) Sandstein 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was here last week. --Rory096 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. JJay did some excellent research in the last Deletion Review discussion documenting the uses of this phrase. I concluded from that research that this neologism is in infrequent use primarily in human interest stories about this small group of activists. No new evidence has been presented convincing me that this decision should be revisited yet. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Rossami. Several advocates of deletion from the original AfD (including me) have indicated that they were aware of JJay's sources. In the AfD/DRV discussion of this topic, it's been noted that, for most men who wear unbifurcated garments outside the Western world, they're just normal clothing. Thus, I suggest that anyone who wants to write about this in an NPOV, non-soapboxy way, could find a way to fit it into the article Clothing or its offshoots. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete - This term is in widespread use among some circles. Wiki includes detailed articles on information specific to very small circles, yet bans information that's in considerably wider use simply because it offends someone's sensibilities? MUGs isn't a new fad - it's the continuation of what men have been wearing for tens of thousands of years, and what approximately a third of men throughout the world routinely wear today. If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein. If they apply to MUGs, they apply elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.180.34 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    This is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole which has infested every previous discussion of this topic. You say that if we delete this term used by a very small group of people and scoring a negligible number of unique Google hits, then we must also delete a word used by millions every day. Assertions like that make it almost impossible to take this subject even slightly seriously: the actions of the proponents of this term have consistently given the impression of zealots with little or no connection to reality, and this is no exception. Just zis Guy you know? 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per JJay. Clearly notable.  Grue  12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So a single newspaper article which notes that a small group uses a given neologism is sufficient to make it clearly notable? Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really need to ask you to stop spreading misinformation as you complain about "ludicrous hyperbole" and "zealots" with "no connection to reality". After stating repeatedly that no sources exist [40], [41], [42], and failing to respond or blatantly ignoring any of the sources offered [43] [44] ,you seem to have now recognized one. Since I know of at least 25 print sources, and a number of manufacturer websites, here are a few links you might find enlightening: The Scotsman, NY Times, Pittsburgh Tribune,Lucire fashion magazine Village Voice- Para 2, New York Magazine, Little India magazine, Out in the Mountains- book review, Reno Gazette, etc. etc. Of course this does not include many sources I can not easily link to such as Newsday, The Economic Times (India) or some of the Australian print sources. The following manufacturer sites also sell unbifurcated garments as prominently shown on their websites: Macabi, Macabi again Utilikilts. This obviously ignores the widespread usage on blogs and the web. The extent of the "notability" of the trend can certainly be debated...and as shown by the links, the term can vary depending on the source. But please stop the nonsense about google hits, zealots, no reliable sources, arm waving, and the like. --JJay 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJay, do you not think that the statement If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein is ludicrous hyperbole? How many references to skirt, dress and pants are there? How many to the term "male unbifurcated garment"? We've been assured that Googling for MUG is a good test for its currency despite the fact that the vast majority of hits are for the ceramic containers. I have seen no credible evidence that this term has any currency outside the (very small) men's fashion freedom movement, and it was in that context that the few mentions we have were made. Right now it is covered in men's fashion freedom, which contextualises it nicely. It has been deleted through valid process and after much discussion, and that deletion has already been confirmed once. No new evidence is being presented here as far as I can tell, it's just a case of them keep asking until they get what they want. Sorry, but that pushes my parental "no means no" button. The clincher for me is that in all the coverage of the prominent men who have been seen wearing skirts (Beckham, Cruise, Gaultier etc.) this term is pretty much absent. The only references I can find linking Beckham to the term, for example, come from the usual source: kiltmen. It is their private conceit which has no real currency. They really really want it to have some currency (read: protologism) but as yet it has pretty much none outside of themselves, and WP:NOT the place to fix that. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. A silly, non-notable term. Also the fact that a DRV on this just ended not too long ago. WarpstarRider 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

02 June 2006

Template:User hate profanity

Speedy deletion. The text of the userbox says "This user does not tolerate profanity." This'd refer to user conduct, since wikipedia is not censored. How is this divisive? Is there a danger of an anti-profanity cabal forming? The userbox is good in highlighting a form of incivility that wikipedia can do without. I'm not a big userbox warrior, so please take this request seriously. Andjam 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Divisive

Penis banding

I have no idea what this page is about, but User:JoeCool722 requested a deletion review. I've asked him to comment on what the page was about. // The True Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis banding. No idea what it is, probably don't want to know. Fan1967 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain until I can see the conecpt of the page. If it's gone through an AfD already (per below), then I agree with it and endorse delete. // The True Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The AFD was properly concluded and this was a valid deletion. As for the article text, I'm assuming that this - http://www.answers.com/topic/penis-banding - from answers.com is the text of the article, by the way. Most of the google hits are related to each other, so it strikes me as a non-notable neologism unless there is evidence otherwise. BigDT 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletionTimothy Usher 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm putting my faith in the AfD determining this one to be a neologism. --StuffOfInterest 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This is the first Wikipedia article I've written. I decided to write the article because there is a noticable lack of information on this topic. This is a not uncommon practice that is performed in BDSM and other contexts. I supposed my confusion over the deletion is that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles related to Body Modification and BDSM. During the initial deletion discussion someone mentioned that there was not a large amount of supporting evidence that this pratice exists. While that was part of my original reasoning to create the article, there are other articles from reputable sources like the following link [45]. I must say I'm very surprised at the apparant lack of open-mindedness. The article was put up a while ago, and even had various edits from other users as well as people linking to it. I don't feel that just because some folks may not understand or agree with a practice is a reason for removal. I do not feel that this article is out of line with numerous other Wikipedia articles, i.e. Transscrotal_piercing, Suspension_(body_modification), Body_nullification, Penis_removal. The Body Nullification article makes an interesting point regarding how many less mainstream practices have become more well known as people are discovering each other as a result of the Internet. That said, as a member of the BDSM community, I can say that this is not an unheard of activity. It's typically more commonly performed on the testicles, but frequnetly done to the penis. It's even discussed in the book "Family Jewels, A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment." Another consideration is that within the BDSM Community many things are passed on via word of mouth. Many people meet at various BDSM related gatherings and are taught various techniques and practices that are not necessarily well documented. Hence my effort to try to take some time and better document this practice. We run into a frustrating Catch-22 where where Wikipedia prefers to have "verifiable" sources, yet, until someone writes something on the topic, it's not "verifiable." There's a bit of a flaw in logic as just because something is not easily verifiable does not necessarily indicate that it's not a valid practice. However, just because someone writes something in a book really doesn't prove that practice to be valid. As mentioned, the BDSM community is historically been a word of mouth type of community as it has not always been well accepted. While I don't have the resources/time to try to write an actual book on more advanced BDSM related techniques, I felt sharing some knowledge of a not well documented practice would have been well received by Wikipedia. JoeCool722 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no catch-22 at all. Wikipedia deliberately chooses NOT to be a primary source. In fact, it is considered a tertiary source. In other words, Wikipedia will report on things that have been clearly documented and verified elsewhere. Wikipedia does not serve as the primary, initial source for anything. Fan1967 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BME website is referenced as an ezine in an existing Wikipedia Article - BME_(website), As per the link in my original post, Banding is referenced in the encyclopedia section of BME as well as numerous other areas of the site. I know we're getting into a fuzzy area regarding "verifiability" but I think a lot of the existing articles in this category are not extensively documented and therefore "verifiable."
  • The fact that there is no information on this "out there" is the very reason there cannot be an article on WP, as stated above and elsewhere. WP:NOR refers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I must say this is more than a little disappointing. I had hoped that Wikipedia as a group would be more open-minded. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the practice, or take part in it. But I don't think it should be censored because some folks don't understand it. I would ask that the decision on this article be made based on policy as opposed to opinion. I'm working on tracking down some additional verifiable resources. Please let me know the best way to proceed to ensure this article remains listed in compliance with policy. JoeCool722 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I've cited a book and the BME website that has been around for more than 10 years and is recognized by Wikipedia. Most people familiar with the Body Modification subject would recognize BME and Shannon who runs BME as an expert resource on the topic. Will the items I've already cited suffice? Or do I need to locate more? I know there were a few more books that had references to banding in them. Please Advise JoeCool722 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD arguments were convincing, and there has been no error in procedure. Still not verifiable, as referencing a website in its entirety is not sufficient - we need specific links or quotes regarding the existence and notability of this activity. Sandstein 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually the first reference is to a specific page in BME regarding banding. I also cited a book. I believe this is getting away from the spirit of Wikipedia and becoming a push to squash something that is not understood. What I really don't understand is there are a dozen other articles in similar subject areas on Wikipedia that are not citing anything and they've been there for a while. I'm really surprised that there is no leniency allowed.

  • Relist First let me thank the administrators. I’ve had a delightful time going through all my books to find resources for them. It’s always fun to re-read favorite books. Many of these can be bought on Amazon. I’ve also included an article from a well known in the BDSM scene magazine. It has also been brought to my attention that Freud covered some of the penis binding (they didn’t have elastrators in his time) in his works. While he considered fetishism a deviant practice the recent American Psychological Association has declared it not to be so since the 1970’s.
If there is a vote I believe the comments “ Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” and “Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” should not apply as these are clearly bias and not related to actual policy.
Here are a few books that discuss penile banding and related Cock and Ball Tortures:
  • The Family Jewels: A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment (Paperback) by Hardy Haberman
  • Intimate Invasions: the erotic ins & outs of enema playby M.R. Strict
  • Female Dominance: Rituals and Practices by Claudia Varrin
  • Leatherfolk by Mark Thompson
  • Tony DeBlase aka Fledermaus 1993, 'Male Genitorture (Also known as Cock and Ball Torture, CBT)' in Sandmutopia Guardian 14, pp14-22
  • Trust, the Hand Book: A Guide to the Sensual and Spiritual Art of Handballing by Bert Herrman
  • Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
  • -- 1953, 'Three Essays on Sexuality' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol VII, London: Hogarth
  • -- 1953a, 'Fetishism' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol XXI (written in 1927), London: Hogarth
  • Undelete, because of all the people saying "I trust the original AfD" (what do you think the Deletion review process is for then?) and because this is clearly a well-documented practice in its own cultural niche. &#0151; JEREMY 15:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been my frustration from the beginning. I missed the initial deletion review as I got busy with work. My wife went to send the link to someone and realized it was gone. Most of the comments in the initial deletion discussion and in this deletion review have been blanket agreements citing the fact that an AfD took place. I would rather have people look at this and assess it for themselves. And of course there are those that just say it should be deleted because it's "Sick" I don't think an individuals personal comfort on a subject should be related to it's inclusion in Wikipedia. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been asking for this from the beginning. This was my first article that I've ever written for Wikipedia. I didn't back it up as I didn't realize it could just be deleted without a chance to go change it back. I read somewhere that there is some process in place to restore the article temporarily during a deletion review, but I don't know how else to go about requesting this. Any assistance from some of the more seasoned Wikipedians would be appreciated. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

01 June 2006

Template:User no notability

NN This user hates notability and how it is used mercilessly on AfD as policy.


Here is the template, why was it deleted? No one posted anything on the TfD page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User no notability. It is a valid, useable userbox that shouldnt be deleted, just like ones that state POV can be used in userboxes or ones that state that they are inclusionist... Also, there was a TfD that reflected consensus, but this UB was speedy deleted and no message was left on the TfD page. Sorry for the ditto. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete as bad-faith deletion. --Disavian 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy, template space is for encyclopedic endeavors, not the advocacy of eliminationg them. Userfy, subst, let people keep it, but get it out of encyclopedic space. -Mask 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not policy. You people are the reason this UB was created. Because you don't understand: Essays carry so much less weight than policy. There's an essay saying that all TV show summarys should be deleted. It must be put into effect since you consider essays policy. Besides, it was not a CSD. There is a TfD going on about it that reflected a Keep consensus, but the deleter ignored it, deleted it, AND didn't even close the TfD debate! -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted This one clearly has the potential to divide Wikipedians and to inflame Wikipedians, which makes it a T1 CSD candidate. But I did learn something from my pre-conclusion research. Of course, someone should implement the German solution on it. GRBerry 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment after more thought and some more discussion. The most troubling word is "hates". But there clearly could be versions that would not be inflammatory. So the salting of the earth is too strong a response - overturn only the salting and put a warning on the talk page of the template that language like "disagrees with", "rejects", or "would like to out that notability is only an essay, not a guideline or policy" is acceptable, but that vehement language like "hates" and "mercilessly" is inappropriate. GRBerry 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as bad-faith userbox. Obviously divisive in intent, probably speediable. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as the subject it addresses is not notable.Timothy Usher 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - not notable per Timothy Usher. ;) (Actually, it is argumentative, divisive, etc.) Metamagician3000 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - I am almost convinced that this should exist, because unlike the vast majority of userboxen that have no relevance to Wikipedia (or at least should not), like "This User is Christian" or "This user licks Goats", this is actually relevant to wikipedia and is the kind of content that fits well on a userpage. It's not exactly the same kind of bumper-sticker crap that most userboxes are. It is still divisive though.. --Improv 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a milder one? Proposal:
NN This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh no, that's still far too divisive and inflammatory, don't you know? Consider this:
NN This user is interested in the critical examination of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

—Ashley Y 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why? That one is like a censored version thats too positive. Why not this:
NN This user is against the views of the notability essay.

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed
  • relist why can't he have an Article i mean why can Syed not have one but michelle dewberry have one, syed has done lots of things aswell as appearing on The Apprentice he appeared in the Celebrity world cup sixes and he is the head of IT People. Bobo6balde66 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. No new evidence has been presented that would suggest that a new discussion would reach a different decision. Endorse closure (content deleted, protected redirect). Rossami (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --Disavian 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Kimchi.sg 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure — unanimous original AfD, and good content already included in The Apprentice (UK series 2). No good reasons have been presented for re-creating this article - the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to merit his own article. A redirect already ensures a reader entering his name can find a brief biography on the relevant article. The fact that Michelle Dewberry has an article is not a reason to undelete this — if her notability is in question that article should be listed at WP:AFD. Finally, IT People, his company was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT People, so the fact that he is the CEO of a company deemed non-notable should be no reason for undeleting this article either. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Reality shows have, by now I hope, settled down: if the contestant becomes notable aside from the appearance, then the person is notable. If the person is merely one face among many squabbling and scratching, then the person should be discussed at the show's article. When the person breaks away from the show in fame, then the article breaks away from the show. This individual has not, at least yet. Geogre 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --mboverload@ 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I watched The Apprentice, enjoyed it, and I absolutely agree with Mboverload: I still don't care. If he ever becomes independently notable, then he gets his own article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Shin Do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_Shin_Do

Undelete Ho Shin Do I worked hard to put up good information on the page and added more info to give backing on the origins of the martial art. I feel that the style itself is worthy of being listed here and train in it with the best of intentions for the founders. The martial art has legitimate roots in Korean martial arts, and I sincerely hope that the deleted can be re-considered. Frankiefuller 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)frankiefuller, 03:33 (EST), 6-10-06. I say Overturn and Undelete[reply]

  • endorse closure. This was a valid AfD with a unanimous "delete" result, I could see no significant and substantial differences between the version as of the deletion nomination and the version as of the afd closure (with the exception of the picture being added, which is not enough), so there was no additional information that was not available to the early voters that may have made them change their minds. Thryduulf 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Thryduulf. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, so what is necessary to make it stay? I could put in a great amount of detail about the art itself and the structure of the system. Man you guys are so stubborn, there are many more sub-par articles out there than this. What makes you guys particular academic experts here, and how many of you are martial arts scholars? Heck, I could get deep into the philosophical side of this if you like. Let's go, baby, I love debates. Politics, after all, is what I'm studying for my doctoral program.Frankiefuller 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Man, people commit murder all the time, why do you have to arrest me?" The existence of poor articles does not justify the existence of poor articles; in this case, the lack of notability of the subject makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Objectivist-C 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not academic experts. We are reporters of academic experts. If there are experts out there discussing this fellow, and if the art has made sufficient splash to be discussed in multiple contexts, then there should be an article. The presence of an article doesn't make something good, and the absence doesn't make it bad; there is no judgment of worth, only of need. Geogre 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted per FrankiefullerQuizQuick 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now or userfy with leave to present when appropriate - here is the article from google cache - [46] - the fact that there are multiple schools teaching this kind of Tae Kwon Do says to me that it is notable. The only problem I see with the article is that it is entirely original research. For that reason and that reason alone, I believe that the deletion is appropriate, but if Frankiefuller would like to rewrite or modify the article as to include other references, I don't see any reason why the subject is not permissible. BigDT 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy with leave to present when appropriate. Let frankiepoo show you that the article is not original research. I can show that the wheel is not being re-invented and can point out how the art has borrowed from several distinctly Korean arts. I am going to go ahead and try modifying the information and then presenting it after I can authenticate the specific data to show non-original research.72.145.93.79 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Frankiefuller[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This was a unanimous deletion discussion. While this group may and probably does have "legitimate roots in Korean martial arts", no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that this is significant offshoot deserving of a separate article-page. No evidence has been presented to justify overturning the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06
Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06
Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

It passed its original deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency, but when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. Daniel Bush 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if Danny is the person who deleted it, why did User:Sean Black salt the earth? GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --Improv 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wasn't this thing deleted via WP:OFFICE? If so, WP:SNOW--Rayc 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my goodness, the second AfDs closing admin's note of procedural irregularities is certainly true. That is a major refactoring from when I last saw the page. (I was the first to make a non-comment response.) I wish, however, that the closing admin had immediately opened a third AFD... It was in AFD via a community decision. I think Resend to AFD is the appropriate outcome, but it is a borderline call, concluded this way because process is important and because the refactoring appears not to have been done by the articles author or one of the new voices brought in. GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, should probably go to AfD again, but definitely undelete it. This abuse of process has got to stop. We have rules here—follow them. Everyking 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just taking the piss. Undelete, do not relist anywhere, and censure the admin who deleted it against consensus. There is no point having shitloads of policy documents and votes on this, that and the other if privileged users can just ignore them out of personal animus. Also censure the admin who has protected the page. This is an egregious abuse of his powers that has become too common these days. The consensus was that there should be an article: protecting it so that there cannot be is completely unacceptable. Apologies for not signing in. -- Grace Note.
  • SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. --Col. Hauler 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. nn blog, clear sentiment to delete among non-sock, non-meatpuppets. We should stop wasting our time, and stop allowing the associated harrassment of legitimate editors over this. NoSeptember talk 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please list all of these sock or meat puppets--or if the list would be shorter everyone who's opinions you find valid? Yes, there are those that I would call foopuppets on the keep side, but there are also several legitimate users. Kotepho 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Puppets are listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach



Recently concluded

2006 June

  1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
  38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
  45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
  62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
  86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

Archives

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.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Deletion review/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.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review

Proposed deletions

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

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Deletion review/History only undeletion

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 October 17}}</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 October 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 17|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 policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines 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".

07 June 2006

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [57] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Wikipedia. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
  • The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

  • We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

  • Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JDtalkemail 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
  • Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
  • Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JDtalkemail 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB[T][C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JDtalkemail 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPStalk to me 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League player lists

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.
  • I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
      • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [58]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

  • Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
  • Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
      However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
  • Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
  • Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sam, Sam I am.
I do not like this censor sham.
Keep deleted in user space.
Keep deleted in any place.
Keep deleted from the socks.
Keep deleted says userbox.
Keep deleted here or there,
Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

  • Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
    I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.[reply]
  • Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Closing this discussion as "transwiki" was within reasonable discretion for the closing admin. The fact that the target project later decided that the content did not fit their inclusion criteria does not mean that Wikipedia must change its own criteria. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (E@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? &#0151; JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[63]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? &#0151; JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[64].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. &#0151; JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. &#0151; JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [65], [66], [67], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. (Personal attack removed) of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -Mask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -Mask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Regarding "Male Unbifurcated Garment", (the article should have been named "Male unbifurcated garments") which was deleted after this AFD, and the subsequent deletion review. I closed the AfD as delete (a decision that I believe reflected the AfD consensus), and for which someone started a silly RFC against me. I believe the AfD and DRV discussions were unneccesarily perturbed by personal opinions (especially by those supporting the article). While editing Men's fashion freedom (which is propaganda for a non-notable movement, and should be deleted), I searched for Male unbifurcated garments and found that this is the most common term used to refer collectively to kilts, caftans, lungis, tupenus, dashikis, hakamas etc, for men. I think the reason why consensus was to delete the article is because it was being used by proponents of "Men's fashion freedom" to popularize their cause, and that those who "voted" against intended to deprive them of using wikipedia for propaganda – meanwhile, useful encyclopedic information went lost. I cannot safely revive this article (even if severely rewritten) without some consensus. I therefore request that the article be taken back to AfD. The previous AfD, after all, did have good arguments to keep, and the DRV was doomed from the beginning because of certain somewhat incivil artitudes. --Ezeu 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Requesting speedy close. Male unbifurcated garments has been created. --Ezeu 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recreating deleted content at a different title merely makes it necessary to speedy-delete the recreated page. By the way, the manual of style says that articles should be created at the singular anyway. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was deleted after a deletion vote on the criteria that the term was not very popular but the phenomenon is very common. It was sent for a deltion review for undeletion where the deletion was not reverted. I propose renaming and redirecting of the article to a new name ("Man-Skirt") which was found by some participants in the votes to be more common. So vote Redirect for supporting the motion , that is to rename and redirect to Man-Skirt, and Keep Deleted for opposing the motion that is to keep the article deleted.

Unitedroad 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I does not matter to me. MUGs, Manskirts, man's skirts, male skirts, whatever. This needs to be mentioned somewhere. Just as I suspected (and the reason why I brought this here), it does not matter in which way one tries to create an article describing this particularity, it will be speedily deleted merely out of principle. --Ezeu 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is to question deletion process. AFD, community consensus, has agreed it should be deleted. Therefore, keep deleted. NSLE (T+C) at 08:13 UTC (2006-06-03)
  • Keep Deleted Didn't we just close a DRV on this? Fan1967 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: It's a tunic, and it's what everyone wore before pants -- "shirt" <-Anglo-Saxon "skirt" <-Old Norse, same garment. <shrug> No undeletion. Geogre 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as there is no reason for resurrecting it under a NEW neologism. If there is material in it that is of value to merge elsewhere, ask an admin to give you a userification. There is no need for multiple DRVs that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and close this DRV - the last one ended less than two weeks ago. You can just write a new article under a new name if you want this to be on WP, there's no need to undelete this just to rename and rewrite it... - ulayiti (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Only 755 GHits? It's not just a neologism, it's a wikineologism. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Validly deleted in process, confirmed by deletion review. Article had no references at all. Sources meeting the reliable source guidelines have still not been cited, nor convincing evidence that the term is in widespread use. Nothing has changed significantly since the AfD or DRV. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The term has very limited currency outside the "male fashion freedom" community. Actually, virtually no currency outside of that community as far as I can tell, and I looked into it in some considerable detail. The current situation, where it is discussed in men's fashion freedom seems entirely sensible. I would support a protected redirect (protected because the proponents of the term are on a mission to promote it, as evidence prior debates). I would also take issue with it being the most widely used term: excluding kiltmen and WP yields something over 8000 ghits for "male unbifurcated garments", but repeating the search with "skirts for men" gets over 13k ghits. Even within the highly restricted locus of those seeking to discuss this topic (which is primarily Western, since they are normal in many countries) I see no compelling evidence that this is the most widely used term. Few if any of the mainstream articles on celebrities who briefly followed the fashion trend for skirts mention the term, it appears to be used solely in the context of the fashion freedom movement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. Numerous print references, websites, and manufacturers confirm usage (as I have pointed out over and over). These references have nothing to do with the fashion freedom movement. --JJay 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed you did, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment. I checked your New York Times reference, Feuer, Alan (2004) "Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder," and it checks out. Changing vote accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that what the article says, as far as I recall, is that the movement calls them that, not that they are widely called that. "male unbifurcated garment" (in quotes) still gets under 500 ghits, and there is still, despite the incessant protestations of its proponents, no evidence of its widespread mainstream use, still less that this is the usual term for these garments. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... and "male unbifurcated garments" gets 8,540 ghits. --Ezeu 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you click through the first few pages of these results, Google discards nearly all of them as "very similar", leaving only 42. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You also find that a good many trace back to the top hit, the kiltmen community. Which appears to be where it originated, and where the advocates come from. Most of those hits are forum posts anyway. Despite all the arm-waving, thew advocates of this term have yet to provide a single credible reference showing that this is the generally used term to describe these garments, or giving any significant usage outside of the small men's fashion freedom community in which context we have pretty much its sole mention in the mainstream press. One article saying that this group uses the term is not really enough, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, undelete, and relist on AfD. Or, those interested can create a new article under this title that cites sources, presents a more neutral, less promotional point of view, and does not read like a personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, we don't need to keep discussing this ad nauseum. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, no process violation apparent, the new references are not really convincing of the notability of this term. Incidentally, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. (Just stumbled across it via a cleanup of High-heeled shoe, which until recently also featured an exhortation on why men should feel good about wearing shirts...) Sandstein 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was here last week. --Rory096 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. JJay did some excellent research in the last Deletion Review discussion documenting the uses of this phrase. I concluded from that research that this neologism is in infrequent use primarily in human interest stories about this small group of activists. No new evidence has been presented convincing me that this decision should be revisited yet. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Rossami. Several advocates of deletion from the original AfD (including me) have indicated that they were aware of JJay's sources. In the AfD/DRV discussion of this topic, it's been noted that, for most men who wear unbifurcated garments outside the Western world, they're just normal clothing. Thus, I suggest that anyone who wants to write about this in an NPOV, non-soapboxy way, could find a way to fit it into the article Clothing or its offshoots. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete - This term is in widespread use among some circles. Wiki includes detailed articles on information specific to very small circles, yet bans information that's in considerably wider use simply because it offends someone's sensibilities? MUGs isn't a new fad - it's the continuation of what men have been wearing for tens of thousands of years, and what approximately a third of men throughout the world routinely wear today. If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein. If they apply to MUGs, they apply elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.180.34 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    This is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole which has infested every previous discussion of this topic. You say that if we delete this term used by a very small group of people and scoring a negligible number of unique Google hits, then we must also delete a word used by millions every day. Assertions like that make it almost impossible to take this subject even slightly seriously: the actions of the proponents of this term have consistently given the impression of zealots with little or no connection to reality, and this is no exception. Just zis Guy you know? 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per JJay. Clearly notable.  Grue  12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So a single newspaper article which notes that a small group uses a given neologism is sufficient to make it clearly notable? Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really need to ask you to stop spreading misinformation as you complain about "ludicrous hyperbole" and "zealots" with "no connection to reality". After stating repeatedly that no sources exist [68], [69], [70], and failing to respond or blatantly ignoring any of the sources offered [71] [72] ,you seem to have now recognized one. Since I know of at least 25 print sources, and a number of manufacturer websites, here are a few links you might find enlightening: The Scotsman, NY Times, Pittsburgh Tribune,Lucire fashion magazine Village Voice- Para 2, New York Magazine, Little India magazine, Out in the Mountains- book review, Reno Gazette, etc. etc. Of course this does not include many sources I can not easily link to such as Newsday, The Economic Times (India) or some of the Australian print sources. The following manufacturer sites also sell unbifurcated garments as prominently shown on their websites: Macabi, Macabi again Utilikilts. This obviously ignores the widespread usage on blogs and the web. The extent of the "notability" of the trend can certainly be debated...and as shown by the links, the term can vary depending on the source. But please stop the nonsense about google hits, zealots, no reliable sources, arm waving, and the like. --JJay 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJay, do you not think that the statement If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein is ludicrous hyperbole? How many references to skirt, dress and pants are there? How many to the term "male unbifurcated garment"? We've been assured that Googling for MUG is a good test for its currency despite the fact that the vast majority of hits are for the ceramic containers. I have seen no credible evidence that this term has any currency outside the (very small) men's fashion freedom movement, and it was in that context that the few mentions we have were made. Right now it is covered in men's fashion freedom, which contextualises it nicely. It has been deleted through valid process and after much discussion, and that deletion has already been confirmed once. No new evidence is being presented here as far as I can tell, it's just a case of them keep asking until they get what they want. Sorry, but that pushes my parental "no means no" button. The clincher for me is that in all the coverage of the prominent men who have been seen wearing skirts (Beckham, Cruise, Gaultier etc.) this term is pretty much absent. The only references I can find linking Beckham to the term, for example, come from the usual source: kiltmen. It is their private conceit which has no real currency. They really really want it to have some currency (read: protologism) but as yet it has pretty much none outside of themselves, and WP:NOT the place to fix that. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. A silly, non-notable term. Also the fact that a DRV on this just ended not too long ago. WarpstarRider 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

02 June 2006

Template:User hate profanity

Speedy deletion. The text of the userbox says "This user does not tolerate profanity." This'd refer to user conduct, since wikipedia is not censored. How is this divisive? Is there a danger of an anti-profanity cabal forming? The userbox is good in highlighting a form of incivility that wikipedia can do without. I'm not a big userbox warrior, so please take this request seriously. Andjam 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Divisive

Penis banding

I have no idea what this page is about, but User:JoeCool722 requested a deletion review. I've asked him to comment on what the page was about. // The True Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis banding. No idea what it is, probably don't want to know. Fan1967 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain until I can see the conecpt of the page. If it's gone through an AfD already (per below), then I agree with it and endorse delete. // The True Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The AFD was properly concluded and this was a valid deletion. As for the article text, I'm assuming that this - http://www.answers.com/topic/penis-banding - from answers.com is the text of the article, by the way. Most of the google hits are related to each other, so it strikes me as a non-notable neologism unless there is evidence otherwise. BigDT 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletionTimothy Usher 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm putting my faith in the AfD determining this one to be a neologism. --StuffOfInterest 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This is the first Wikipedia article I've written. I decided to write the article because there is a noticable lack of information on this topic. This is a not uncommon practice that is performed in BDSM and other contexts. I supposed my confusion over the deletion is that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles related to Body Modification and BDSM. During the initial deletion discussion someone mentioned that there was not a large amount of supporting evidence that this pratice exists. While that was part of my original reasoning to create the article, there are other articles from reputable sources like the following link [73]. I must say I'm very surprised at the apparant lack of open-mindedness. The article was put up a while ago, and even had various edits from other users as well as people linking to it. I don't feel that just because some folks may not understand or agree with a practice is a reason for removal. I do not feel that this article is out of line with numerous other Wikipedia articles, i.e. Transscrotal_piercing, Suspension_(body_modification), Body_nullification, Penis_removal. The Body Nullification article makes an interesting point regarding how many less mainstream practices have become more well known as people are discovering each other as a result of the Internet. That said, as a member of the BDSM community, I can say that this is not an unheard of activity. It's typically more commonly performed on the testicles, but frequnetly done to the penis. It's even discussed in the book "Family Jewels, A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment." Another consideration is that within the BDSM Community many things are passed on via word of mouth. Many people meet at various BDSM related gatherings and are taught various techniques and practices that are not necessarily well documented. Hence my effort to try to take some time and better document this practice. We run into a frustrating Catch-22 where where Wikipedia prefers to have "verifiable" sources, yet, until someone writes something on the topic, it's not "verifiable." There's a bit of a flaw in logic as just because something is not easily verifiable does not necessarily indicate that it's not a valid practice. However, just because someone writes something in a book really doesn't prove that practice to be valid. As mentioned, the BDSM community is historically been a word of mouth type of community as it has not always been well accepted. While I don't have the resources/time to try to write an actual book on more advanced BDSM related techniques, I felt sharing some knowledge of a not well documented practice would have been well received by Wikipedia. JoeCool722 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no catch-22 at all. Wikipedia deliberately chooses NOT to be a primary source. In fact, it is considered a tertiary source. In other words, Wikipedia will report on things that have been clearly documented and verified elsewhere. Wikipedia does not serve as the primary, initial source for anything. Fan1967 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BME website is referenced as an ezine in an existing Wikipedia Article - BME_(website), As per the link in my original post, Banding is referenced in the encyclopedia section of BME as well as numerous other areas of the site. I know we're getting into a fuzzy area regarding "verifiability" but I think a lot of the existing articles in this category are not extensively documented and therefore "verifiable."
  • The fact that there is no information on this "out there" is the very reason there cannot be an article on WP, as stated above and elsewhere. WP:NOR refers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I must say this is more than a little disappointing. I had hoped that Wikipedia as a group would be more open-minded. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the practice, or take part in it. But I don't think it should be censored because some folks don't understand it. I would ask that the decision on this article be made based on policy as opposed to opinion. I'm working on tracking down some additional verifiable resources. Please let me know the best way to proceed to ensure this article remains listed in compliance with policy. JoeCool722 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I've cited a book and the BME website that has been around for more than 10 years and is recognized by Wikipedia. Most people familiar with the Body Modification subject would recognize BME and Shannon who runs BME as an expert resource on the topic. Will the items I've already cited suffice? Or do I need to locate more? I know there were a few more books that had references to banding in them. Please Advise JoeCool722 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD arguments were convincing, and there has been no error in procedure. Still not verifiable, as referencing a website in its entirety is not sufficient - we need specific links or quotes regarding the existence and notability of this activity. Sandstein 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually the first reference is to a specific page in BME regarding banding. I also cited a book. I believe this is getting away from the spirit of Wikipedia and becoming a push to squash something that is not understood. What I really don't understand is there are a dozen other articles in similar subject areas on Wikipedia that are not citing anything and they've been there for a while. I'm really surprised that there is no leniency allowed.

  • Relist First let me thank the administrators. I’ve had a delightful time going through all my books to find resources for them. It’s always fun to re-read favorite books. Many of these can be bought on Amazon. I’ve also included an article from a well known in the BDSM scene magazine. It has also been brought to my attention that Freud covered some of the penis binding (they didn’t have elastrators in his time) in his works. While he considered fetishism a deviant practice the recent American Psychological Association has declared it not to be so since the 1970’s.
If there is a vote I believe the comments “ Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” and “Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” should not apply as these are clearly bias and not related to actual policy.
Here are a few books that discuss penile banding and related Cock and Ball Tortures:
  • The Family Jewels: A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment (Paperback) by Hardy Haberman
  • Intimate Invasions: the erotic ins & outs of enema playby M.R. Strict
  • Female Dominance: Rituals and Practices by Claudia Varrin
  • Leatherfolk by Mark Thompson
  • Tony DeBlase aka Fledermaus 1993, 'Male Genitorture (Also known as Cock and Ball Torture, CBT)' in Sandmutopia Guardian 14, pp14-22
  • Trust, the Hand Book: A Guide to the Sensual and Spiritual Art of Handballing by Bert Herrman
  • Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
  • -- 1953, 'Three Essays on Sexuality' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol VII, London: Hogarth
  • -- 1953a, 'Fetishism' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol XXI (written in 1927), London: Hogarth
  • Undelete, because of all the people saying "I trust the original AfD" (what do you think the Deletion review process is for then?) and because this is clearly a well-documented practice in its own cultural niche. &#0151; JEREMY 15:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been my frustration from the beginning. I missed the initial deletion review as I got busy with work. My wife went to send the link to someone and realized it was gone. Most of the comments in the initial deletion discussion and in this deletion review have been blanket agreements citing the fact that an AfD took place. I would rather have people look at this and assess it for themselves. And of course there are those that just say it should be deleted because it's "Sick" I don't think an individuals personal comfort on a subject should be related to it's inclusion in Wikipedia. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been asking for this from the beginning. This was my first article that I've ever written for Wikipedia. I didn't back it up as I didn't realize it could just be deleted without a chance to go change it back. I read somewhere that there is some process in place to restore the article temporarily during a deletion review, but I don't know how else to go about requesting this. Any assistance from some of the more seasoned Wikipedians would be appreciated. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

01 June 2006

Template:User no notability

NN This user hates notability and how it is used mercilessly on AfD as policy.


Here is the template, why was it deleted? No one posted anything on the TfD page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User no notability. It is a valid, useable userbox that shouldnt be deleted, just like ones that state POV can be used in userboxes or ones that state that they are inclusionist... Also, there was a TfD that reflected consensus, but this UB was speedy deleted and no message was left on the TfD page. Sorry for the ditto. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete as bad-faith deletion. --Disavian 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy, template space is for encyclopedic endeavors, not the advocacy of eliminationg them. Userfy, subst, let people keep it, but get it out of encyclopedic space. -Mask 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not policy. You people are the reason this UB was created. Because you don't understand: Essays carry so much less weight than policy. There's an essay saying that all TV show summarys should be deleted. It must be put into effect since you consider essays policy. Besides, it was not a CSD. There is a TfD going on about it that reflected a Keep consensus, but the deleter ignored it, deleted it, AND didn't even close the TfD debate! -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted This one clearly has the potential to divide Wikipedians and to inflame Wikipedians, which makes it a T1 CSD candidate. But I did learn something from my pre-conclusion research. Of course, someone should implement the German solution on it. GRBerry 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment after more thought and some more discussion. The most troubling word is "hates". But there clearly could be versions that would not be inflammatory. So the salting of the earth is too strong a response - overturn only the salting and put a warning on the talk page of the template that language like "disagrees with", "rejects", or "would like to out that notability is only an essay, not a guideline or policy" is acceptable, but that vehement language like "hates" and "mercilessly" is inappropriate. GRBerry 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as bad-faith userbox. Obviously divisive in intent, probably speediable. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as the subject it addresses is not notable.Timothy Usher 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - not notable per Timothy Usher. ;) (Actually, it is argumentative, divisive, etc.) Metamagician3000 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - I am almost convinced that this should exist, because unlike the vast majority of userboxen that have no relevance to Wikipedia (or at least should not), like "This User is Christian" or "This user licks Goats", this is actually relevant to wikipedia and is the kind of content that fits well on a userpage. It's not exactly the same kind of bumper-sticker crap that most userboxes are. It is still divisive though.. --Improv 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a milder one? Proposal:
NN This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh no, that's still far too divisive and inflammatory, don't you know? Consider this:
NN This user is interested in the critical examination of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

—Ashley Y 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why? That one is like a censored version thats too positive. Why not this:
NN This user is against the views of the notability essay.

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed
  • relist why can't he have an Article i mean why can Syed not have one but michelle dewberry have one, syed has done lots of things aswell as appearing on The Apprentice he appeared in the Celebrity world cup sixes and he is the head of IT People. Bobo6balde66 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. No new evidence has been presented that would suggest that a new discussion would reach a different decision. Endorse closure (content deleted, protected redirect). Rossami (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --Disavian 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Kimchi.sg 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure — unanimous original AfD, and good content already included in The Apprentice (UK series 2). No good reasons have been presented for re-creating this article - the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to merit his own article. A redirect already ensures a reader entering his name can find a brief biography on the relevant article. The fact that Michelle Dewberry has an article is not a reason to undelete this — if her notability is in question that article should be listed at WP:AFD. Finally, IT People, his company was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT People, so the fact that he is the CEO of a company deemed non-notable should be no reason for undeleting this article either. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Reality shows have, by now I hope, settled down: if the contestant becomes notable aside from the appearance, then the person is notable. If the person is merely one face among many squabbling and scratching, then the person should be discussed at the show's article. When the person breaks away from the show in fame, then the article breaks away from the show. This individual has not, at least yet. Geogre 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --mboverload@ 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I watched The Apprentice, enjoyed it, and I absolutely agree with Mboverload: I still don't care. If he ever becomes independently notable, then he gets his own article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Shin Do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_Shin_Do

Undelete Ho Shin Do I worked hard to put up good information on the page and added more info to give backing on the origins of the martial art. I feel that the style itself is worthy of being listed here and train in it with the best of intentions for the founders. The martial art has legitimate roots in Korean martial arts, and I sincerely hope that the deleted can be re-considered. Frankiefuller 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)frankiefuller, 03:33 (EST), 6-10-06. I say Overturn and Undelete[reply]

  • endorse closure. This was a valid AfD with a unanimous "delete" result, I could see no significant and substantial differences between the version as of the deletion nomination and the version as of the afd closure (with the exception of the picture being added, which is not enough), so there was no additional information that was not available to the early voters that may have made them change their minds. Thryduulf 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Thryduulf. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, so what is necessary to make it stay? I could put in a great amount of detail about the art itself and the structure of the system. Man you guys are so stubborn, there are many more sub-par articles out there than this. What makes you guys particular academic experts here, and how many of you are martial arts scholars? Heck, I could get deep into the philosophical side of this if you like. Let's go, baby, I love debates. Politics, after all, is what I'm studying for my doctoral program.Frankiefuller 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Man, people commit murder all the time, why do you have to arrest me?" The existence of poor articles does not justify the existence of poor articles; in this case, the lack of notability of the subject makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Objectivist-C 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not academic experts. We are reporters of academic experts. If there are experts out there discussing this fellow, and if the art has made sufficient splash to be discussed in multiple contexts, then there should be an article. The presence of an article doesn't make something good, and the absence doesn't make it bad; there is no judgment of worth, only of need. Geogre 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted per FrankiefullerQuizQuick 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now or userfy with leave to present when appropriate - here is the article from google cache - [74] - the fact that there are multiple schools teaching this kind of Tae Kwon Do says to me that it is notable. The only problem I see with the article is that it is entirely original research. For that reason and that reason alone, I believe that the deletion is appropriate, but if Frankiefuller would like to rewrite or modify the article as to include other references, I don't see any reason why the subject is not permissible. BigDT 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy with leave to present when appropriate. Let frankiepoo show you that the article is not original research. I can show that the wheel is not being re-invented and can point out how the art has borrowed from several distinctly Korean arts. I am going to go ahead and try modifying the information and then presenting it after I can authenticate the specific data to show non-original research.72.145.93.79 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Frankiefuller[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This was a unanimous deletion discussion. While this group may and probably does have "legitimate roots in Korean martial arts", no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that this is significant offshoot deserving of a separate article-page. No evidence has been presented to justify overturning the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06
Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06
Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

It passed its original deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency, but when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. Daniel Bush 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if Danny is the person who deleted it, why did User:Sean Black salt the earth? GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --Improv 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wasn't this thing deleted via WP:OFFICE? If so, WP:SNOW--Rayc 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my goodness, the second AfDs closing admin's note of procedural irregularities is certainly true. That is a major refactoring from when I last saw the page. (I was the first to make a non-comment response.) I wish, however, that the closing admin had immediately opened a third AFD... It was in AFD via a community decision. I think Resend to AFD is the appropriate outcome, but it is a borderline call, concluded this way because process is important and because the refactoring appears not to have been done by the articles author or one of the new voices brought in. GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, should probably go to AfD again, but definitely undelete it. This abuse of process has got to stop. We have rules here—follow them. Everyking 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just taking the piss. Undelete, do not relist anywhere, and censure the admin who deleted it against consensus. There is no point having shitloads of policy documents and votes on this, that and the other if privileged users can just ignore them out of personal animus. Also censure the admin who has protected the page. This is an egregious abuse of his powers that has become too common these days. The consensus was that there should be an article: protecting it so that there cannot be is completely unacceptable. Apologies for not signing in. -- Grace Note.
  • SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. --Col. Hauler 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. nn blog, clear sentiment to delete among non-sock, non-meatpuppets. We should stop wasting our time, and stop allowing the associated harrassment of legitimate editors over this. NoSeptember talk 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please list all of these sock or meat puppets--or if the list would be shorter everyone who's opinions you find valid? Yes, there are those that I would call foopuppets on the keep side, but there are also several legitimate users. Kotepho 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Puppets are listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach



Recently concluded

2006 June

  1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
  38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
  45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
  62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
  86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

Archives

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 October 17}}</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 October 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 17|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 policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines 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".

07 June 2006

AlternC

An extension from Control panel (Web hosting) The administrator Zoe deleted this page on account of advertising, however I'm not affiliated with AlternC nor do I advise/condone its use, I am simply noting the control panel along with a list of many other noteworthy control panels. I am not advertising in any way, I believe it is a misunderstanding.

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [85] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Cubis

This page has been continually deleted, because the initial article was created by the feature of the article himself, Shane Cubis. While the initial article may have been vanity or vandalism, he enlisted a group of his followers to create a real article in Wikipedia. His page has since been listed as a protected deleted pages, and his talk page is routinely deleted preventing a fair discussion of the deletion.

Shane Cubis does not fail WP:Bio and thus never really qualified for WP:AfD. Just because the article started as vandalism or vanity, it does not take away from the fact an actual compliant article could be at this entry, Shane Cubis. At the very least there should have been a discussion on the talk page, and not a speedy deletion into Protected deleted pages. JustOneJake 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

  • The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The proof is available for everybody.
  • It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
  • Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really no objections.)
  • If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle.
  • The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously. Links to it were put in WP almost year ago and a great amount of people have checked it, including highly qualified editors of the uncertainty principle.
  • The questoin of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

Opponents say:

  • We are not specialists in the subject, and cannot judge the principle from purely scientific point of view. But we want to protect WP from pseudo-science.
  • Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
  • The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

What should we do in this situation? The conflict is going to become a war. Hryun 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

This page had more people wanting to keep it then people wanting to delete it. It has been wronlgy deleted by someone who was against the page from its existence. As soon as it was created, this user marked it for deletion. It was wrongly deleted and I campaign for it to be restored... Ellisjm 16:06 UTC 6 June 06

  • Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JDtalkemail 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
  • Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
  • Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JDtalkemail 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

-- JAB[T][C] 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JDtalkemail 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPStalk to me 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiPâques.png

Image:WikiPâques.png was deleted in February on the basis it was an orphan. Well, of course it was an orphan - it was February and the image was an Easter Wikipedia logo, so it'll only be unorphaned when it's Easter. I see no valid reason to delete this. Users may still want it on their user page at Easter. It's also causing red links in older revisions. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 14 for the listing on IfD. There's a copy here if the deletion is overturned and someone wants to reupload it. Angela. 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League player lists

Relist. They were improperly speedy deleted out of process for "already have lists of hockey players. don't need two" . Although they were posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NHL players A, I was not given an opportunity to state some reasons as to why they should be kept, such as (briefly):

Because of these reasons, there is really no basis for speedy deletion -- they were out of process Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, bring the lists back. They were the best way of keeping tabs on hockey player articles so that duplicate articles weren't created and so that disambigs are easier. Masterhatch 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bring them back! This is not link-farming or spamming. Although it's not always 100% accurate, as far as being a simple and comprehensive directory of statistics Hockeydb is the best site I've seen. Criticizing them for having advertisements is absurd -- apart from Wikipedia, almost every other site on the web does too! And like Masterhatch said, the list itself was invaluable for keeping track of NHL player articles. — GT 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:EL. Internal links are fine, and an external link to Hockeydb on each individual article is fine, too, but the point of WP lists is not to link to external articles on each of a number of related subjects, and the removal of external links from list articles is very common practice supported by policy and guidelines. As far as the lists themselves are concerned, they would be worth having if there are many redlinks, otherwise I can't see what this adds to a (self-maintaining) category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that the majority of players who played before last decade do not have articles. That's why these pages were so useful -- you could browse them and see if a player you recognized didn't yet have an article. The nice thing about having the Hockeydb links right there was that you could instantly see the "story" behind each red-linked player as represented by his career statistics (which often tells you as much as you care to know about him). As far as not obeying WP:EL, I disagree as the point of the page was to be a list of players, and the external links served a secondary purpose. — GT 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having the external link right beside each player helped keep people from adding their own name as a vanity article. hockeydb.com is, as far as i know, the most complete list of hockey players and their stats on the net and it because really easy to see if an added name is a vanity article or a real player. Masterhatch 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not make an infobox template with a parameter for the hockeydb entry? A Wikipedia list with external links (first!) and predominantly redlinks for the internal links is practically begging for deletion. External links are for references in articles. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's taking so long to get A through G back? Masterhatch 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put everything back. Another admin deleted them again. Go talk to him. pschemp | talk 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as A3: article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections); deleted as such (i.e. in-process, as this is a valid speedy criterion). I didn't see any evidence that the deleting admin was aware of this debate.
  • I have reopened the AfD and restored the deleted ones, as valid but contested speedy deletions. These are bare lists of links. The list of mainly redlinks may serve a purpose; perhaps it would be better to have these in Project space as part of a wikiproject's work list? Bare lists with no other data are an abomination unto Nuggan and should be shunned into oblivion; if dates and other encyclopaedic information are added then these are defensible (without, obviously, the external links). I have removed the external links to make this less like a mirror of HockeyDB with one or two Wikipedia articles added Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it or delete it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

With respect to the Original Undelete request by me, I have composed the following article in my userspace which meets (as far as I can tell) the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Notability, etc.

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

I, do,once again, request request undeletion per original request:

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, undelete request by PHDrillSergeant. This web comic has grown in poularity since the last time it was deleted through AFD, and although the site's archive has 'only three entries', each of those entries has about 20-40 pages, which adds up to over 100 pages total including the current storyline. This comic is extremely funny and is important, especially one who wishes to know more about this odd character and his adventures. I think this comic should get another chance. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 23:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
      • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [86]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cory kennedy

My article on Cory kennedy was deleted via speedy deletion. I think this was a wrong move. Cory Kennedy is a becoming a huge internet phenenomenon. She has found a cult following on myspace, livejournal, and the cobra snake - as well as a place in current pop culture. This is the digital age. People are going to be looking her up. There is no reason for this article to have been deleted. This site should provide the most information possible - even about "internet celebrities." In fact, internet phenenomenons are particularly relevent on wikipedia because this IS the internet! I am requesting that this article be placed back up. I put in quite a bit of useful, accurate information about a person who is becoming very well known on the internet. Cory was also recently featured in Nylon magazine. Please review this. ~user:sleepyasthesouth

  • Endorse speedy - As the deleting admin, it looked to be a nn-bio. The references were not reliable sources (blogs and livejournal). I deleted it first on a csd placed by another editor, then as a recreation (sleepyasthesouth recreated it including the notability and csd tags) and salted the earth. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Syrthiss. From the speedy tag: "it is an article about a person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" There is no evidence that The Cobra Snake is itself a notable website, or that the parties she attends are notable, so all the more there cannot be evidence that she is notable for being on The Cobra Snake or for attending parties. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADD-ON : I now understand why is was deleted. However, Isn't Cory Kennedy notable for suddenly having so many "fans" and finding herself all over the internet so quickly? What would qualify as a notable source? Would her feature in Nylon magazine qualify? Even if the information in the wikipedia article did not contain more than what is provided in the Nylon article? ~user:sleepyasthesouth
  • Undelete and list on AfD As a contested speedy and the presence in Nylon constitutes a minimal claim to notability. JoshuaZ 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse / keep deleted As far as "internet phenomenon" qualifications go, I get 207 unique Google hits and the vast majority of those seem to be about other people by that name, among them a male bodybuilder, a soccer player, a congressional staff member, and a volleyball player. If she's an internet phenomenon, the internet doesn't really seem to be aware of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cory has only recently exploded on the internet over the past few weeks and it has been almost entirely on myspace, blogs and livejournal - places that will not really end up in google. A community was made for her on livejournal and in just over a week there are already over 200 members.
      However, if that's the final word - fine. I imagine soon she'll be on the site because her popularity seems to be only increasing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.205.176 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Above comment is misinformed. Those sites are very heavily indexed by google. Fan1967 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment A lot of absolute bullshit is heavily indexed by google, too. Being indexed by google doesn't make something a reliable source. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I'm aware of that. However, the anon was trying to argue there was more attention being paid to this person in myspace and such sites that google wouldn't pick up. Google picks up pretty much everything there, so there's no hidden trove of notability. Fan1967 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, I typed that early this morning, apparently before things started to make sense. Reading it now, yes, you're right. I agree that if google can't see you; you aren't much of an internet phenomenon.
  • Endorse deletion, quite blatantly there are no reliable sources for this. And 'contested speedy' is not a reason to restore (unlike contested PROD). --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think the article definitely should have been deleted, however, I do not believe that it met the deliberately narrow speedy deletion criteria. I believe quite strongly that Sam is incorrect. A speedy-deletion that is contested in good faith is to be immediately restored and listed to AFD. That was a requirement set up when the speedy-deletion process was first established. Much as I hate to be a process wonk, we have to keep our own process creep under control. Overturn speedy and list to AFD. Being unsourced may be a deletion criteria but it is not a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD, Rossami? Because I've never heard that, there's nothing in any of the obvious places saying that (e.g. next to the section on contested WP:PRODs on this very page), and if it ever was true, the widespread acceptance of WP:SNOW appears to contradict it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. There's no sourced claim of notability. Hence, CSD A7. The recourse for contested speedy deletions is this page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid speedy A7, and stands no chance whatsoever at AfD Just zis Guy you know? 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can see the future here? WP:SNOW is never appropriate, specifically in a discussion about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, I can see the future fairly accurately here. Articles on vapid pseudo-celebrities with no objective claim to notability get daleted almost without exception. Most likely it would be tagged and speedied as A7 almost immediately it was listed. Somewhere I have a postcard with a picture of Michael Fish and the caption"I Predict The Future: Weatherman's Amazing Claim"... Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion sort of reluctantly. Rossami and Thieverr are quite right that this wasn't a good choice for speedy deletion, and for a dozen reasons it's better to err on the side of AfD - worst thing that happens is someone speedies it from there anyway. But... I dunno. These darn internet meme and internet meme wannabe articles are such pains, because there tends to be a crowd willing to stonewall against policy on them every time, and then we end up back at DRV. It would never be kept by a proper AfD, but it probably won't ever see one either, so it's best to keep it dead once it's dead. If the girl actually sticks around, there'll be media, and you can rewrite the article about her then. Does it really hurt that much if the interweb's flavor of the month doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article? There's something to be said for standards. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per others and per WP:SNOW.
  • Endorse deletion: Websites generate huge numbers for anything and everything, but it would be very wrong to call these numbers "fans." Further, it's all about the effect on the recorded world, the verifiable world. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out is less reliable than anything that needs a flood to destroy it. Geogre 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics

User:Thebainer requested me to file this request below. The article has been speedied, because User:Rgulerdem allegedly edited it after he was indefinitely banned. Even if that allegation is correct, WP:CSD G5 only allows pages to be speedied, if they were created by banned users while they were banned. Irregular edits can easily be reverted instead. Raphael1 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sam, Sam I am.
I do not like this censor sham.
Keep deleted in user space.
Keep deleted in any place.
Keep deleted from the socks.
Keep deleted says userbox.
Keep deleted here or there,
Keep deleted anywhere. --Dr. Blanning 16:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. Kotepho 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

04 June 2006

List of midnight movies

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense," which I felt was unjustified. I placed a "hangon" tag on the article, and stated my reasoning on the article's talk page. I was going to list it on AfD and propose that it be merged with the main Midnight Movies article. I never got the opportunity to do so, however, since the article was, and I think rather precipitously, deleted. I propose, therefore, that the speedy deletion be reversed, the article be listed on AfD and suggest it's merger as stated above. ---Charles 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yar

I would appreciate opinions/education on the deletion of Yar. I understand the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, it would seem that certain concepts, which may be expressed in a single word, have some merit to their explanation. For a very similar use-case, see Gemütlichkeit. Thanks. --Incarnate

  • Endorse deletion. Certainly, there is merit to there explanation of a word. That's what a dictionary is for. There was nothing in any version of this page that even attempted to be more than a definition. Please try creating it at Wiktionary.
    I'll note, however, that this particular word doesn't actually appear in any dictionary I could quickly put my hands on. (Merriam Webster had an entry as a variant spelling of "yare" but the definition given has nothing to do with any of the definitions on the deleted page.) Be prepared to offer some verifiable sources for the alleged definitions when you do so. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much for the clarification. I was uncertain of where the line might exist between the definition of a "word" and the definition of a "concept" (ie, definition of the word "cottage" versus a cottage) Additionally, the original article was based on my own experience, which is probably a better reason for deletion per the standards of articles (which I do support). Formal definitions are virtually nonexistent, only cropping up occasionally in film or TV as a truncated reference to boating. I'll give up and leave it be, thanks again for the appraisal. Incarnate 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AK Productions

AK Productions was deleted suddenly and for know told reason. I believe that AK Productions should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, sure it is a young company but still exists. I would like the article to be restored or for a reason to be given for it's overnight deletion. Comrade_Kale 2:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Mere existence is insufficient reason to justify a Wikipedia article. There appear to be a number of companies out there by that name. Which one is yours? Fan1967 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid A7. --Rory096 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence of this page read "AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. Founded by Kale Carter, Brendan Carter, Olin Carlsen and Andrew Desimone in late May of 2006". It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria but if it had gone to AFD, it would have been measured against the standards of WP:CORP. From the information available, I don't see any chance that it would have succeeded in that discussion. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither can I support it's undeletion without at least a little bit of evidence that this is appropriate to the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: We get a ton of buddy articles from youngsters. Simply put, they need to be real before they can even go to AfD, IMO. If something is just three kids announcing that they are now a corporation (or rock band, or rap group, or game faction, or gang), then it's true A7. The kick is the "formed in 2006" and "recently." We need to have things generate effects on the world before anyone will need them explained. Geogre 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AK Productions, is a recently created Production Company operating out of Waterville High School in New York State. And the article was created and edited solely by the people named in the article. A textbook case of WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together

FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together was deleted as not notable. I think it is notable, given the press coverage listed under "References" and the people behind it, and I would like the article to be restored. TruthbringerToronto 11:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tongue-twisters

I listed the article for deletion on 17 April. The consensus was to either keep, or move to Wikibooks. The article was transwikied on 29 May by User:theProject, and subsequently deleted by User:Tijuana Brass. However, it was proclaimed unsuitable for Wikibooks and deleted from there by b:User:Jguk. As the alternative to transwiki was keep, and transwikiing failed, we should restore it. Rain74 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, the afd was pretty clear that this should be kept somewhere. After undeletion transwiki discussions should continue. — xaosflux Talk 12:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to endorse.[reply]
  • Undelete don't know why it was deleted in the first place, because it was one of the better lists on Wikipedia. Promote to featured after undeletion.  Grue  12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist: I'd prefer that conjunctive votes get clear on the matter. Yes, it will probably be kept, but I should like AfD to speak clearly. Geogre 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep deleted in light of information that the thing was transwiki'd. If there has been a transwiki, then this is a no-brainer (and pretty much an invalid review), as duplicate material is forbidden. If the authors don't want it on Wikiquote, then that's sort of too bad, as authors are no more priviledged than readers at Wikipedia. Geogre 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It did. It was transwikied, rejected at it's target, and now transwiki'd elsewhere. -Splash - tk 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Splash. I took the deletion summary and his comment on WT:DRV too literally and did not realize it was already moved to Wikiquote. Kotepho 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Undelete/Transwiki to wikiquote, this is just silly. Kotepho 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no. People should do there research first. It's been transwiki'd to Wikiquote. See q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Wikipedia didn't want it, and neither did Wikibooks. That is no reason to restore it here. You don't get some kind of free pass into Wikipedia just because noone else wants it! Anyway, it's been transwiki'd elsewhere. That's all that's needed. -Splash - tk 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme keep deleted. Just because wikibooks doesn't want something doesn't mean we have to keep it. And I totally agree with Splash. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Splash. The AfD debate did show a strong consensus that the content be kept somewhere, but now that it's on Wikiquote, there's no reason to keep it here. (I've notified all the people who voted before Splash's comment and asked them to revise or confirm their vote in light of it. Sorry for the spam.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, as the desired outcome (keeping the content elsewhere) has been reached. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the VfD in question has a consensus to keep. Most users voted for keep as a primary solution and transwiki as a secondary. The VfD was closed inproperly. There were no delete votes. The decision should be overturned.  Grue  09:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete, but remove the non-English tongue twisters and have interwiki links to the other languages for their tongue twisters. Masterhatch 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Closing this discussion as "transwiki" was within reasonable discretion for the closing admin. The fact that the target project later decided that the content did not fit their inclusion criteria does not mean that Wikipedia must change its own criteria. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

This page got deleted for the following reason: "can't have copy & paste moves of deleted pages - GFDL requires the history"

I've copied the page from User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics (before it was removed) and pasted it to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I didn't know how I could have copied the history of this article as well and certainly didn't want to violate GFDL. Please restore that page together with the history of User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to make it compliant with GFDL. Raphael1 00:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Anyway, Rgulerdem is banned, and it was a fair deletion that time. Will (E@) T 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This "policy" has been the source of highly contentious and disruptive editing and User:Raphael1's user page is just an unecessary copy of the rejected Wikipedia:Wikiethics that is likely to do the same as User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics which is to encourage banned editors to use sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to circumvent their block to edit on Wikipedia. Netscott 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you deem my copy to be "unnecessary" is certainly no part of WP:CSD. Furthermore did User:Raphael1/Wikiethics with no syllable encourage banned editors to circumvent their block. I wonder, where you got that from? Raphael1 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well this MfD for User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics is what relates to my mentioning banned and sockpuppet users. I'm curious Raphael1, why did you actually save a copy of permanently banned user User:Rgulerdem's page? I understand that as Wikipedia editors we are to assume good faith in the editing of our fellow contributors but was the reason you saved a copy because you noticed that as a banned editor Resid Gulerdem was editing on it and figured that it'd be deleted and to disrupt that process you decided to save a copy? It seems so odd to me that you should have just happened to save a copy of his user page version just prior to its deletion. Netscott 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: the article itself isn't banned, just one of the originating editors. Netscott, why is it a problem for Raphael1 to have a userspace copy (I assume a developmental version, like User:Jeremygbyrne/Roger Elwood or User:Jeremygbyrne/Brontosaurus) of an article? &#0151; JEREMY 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - this vote was gained through advertisement.[91]Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jeremy, it's all a question of good faith. I didn't request deletion or even mention the existence of Raphael1's user page copy of permanently banned User:Rgulerdem's user page to anyone (despite misgivings about seeing him copy it just prior to its deletion) but someone else from the WikiEn-I mailing list appears to have seen mention of it by Raphael1 there and decided independently to delete it. Now that the act is done I support it for the reasons I expressed above. I would recommend the both of you to disassociate yourselves from Resid Gulerdem for anyone editing in support of him is likely to have his or her own reputation tarnished as he was not only disruptive here but in a completely independent fashion was repeatedly disruptive and blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia. Resid Gulerdem is just bad for Wikipedia. Netscott 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand your "good faith" argument. It's obvious that most material which is about to be deleted will continue to exist elsewhere — in google's cache for example. Raphael1 could have taken a copy of the article offsite and done to it whatever he chose, in the privacy of his own home. Instead, he chose to keep it on wikipedia (which looks like good faith to me), and he has suffered for it. Next time, do you think he will be more or less inclined to act in secrecy? &#0151; JEREMY 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The preceding user's comments were solicited through targetted advertisement[92].Timothy Usher 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need to persist with your well-poisoning, Timothy. Most people understood your accusation the first time. &#0151; JEREMY 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Suffered? Where's the suffering? The only ones suffereing are those having to spend time dealing with this nonsense. Let's face it Jeremy, Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion the virtually assured deletion of Resid Gulerdem's user page. Is that not so difficult to understand? Regardless as bainer's comment below illustrates, Raphael1 shouldn't be trying to resurrect his own copy of Resid Gulerdem's final version of "Wikiethics" but in fact should be trying to resurrect Resid Gulerdem's (rightly imho) deleted user page. Netscott 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Raphael1's actions were to thwart in a disruptive fashion And you foresaw this via which divinatory or telepathic methodology, exactly? It would seem far more likely that Raphael1 took a copy to preserve relevant material for a future proposal. Your refusal to assume good faith (or at least not to assume the first bad faith interpretation that springs to mind) is troubling. This is yet another example of flawed rules-lawyering supported by the tyranny of the majority. Raphael1's editing may frustrate some people, but the way he has been treated is disgraceful. &#0151; JEREMY 11:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The plea to "rules lawyering" is rather lame, can't you do better than use that argumentation device? Honestly, Raphael1 like myself and User:Metros232 saw that the permanently banned editor User:Rgulerdem was editing via IP addresses on his failed Wikiethics proposal and realized (again rightly so) that it was likely to be deleted because of that and to thwart such a deletion he saved a copy. Raphael1 wasn't involved in editing on that policy since it was last worked on over at Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Does it not strike either of you as foolish to be here wasting our time discussing the saving of a policy that was founded by a demonstrably disruptive editor? It's as if you're here trying to defend a banned user's right to continue to make policy on Wikipedia even when he's blocked. The only reason I can see for this is because "it's a cause!". You know if Resid Gulerdem had only been blocked on the English Wikipedia I might understand better those wanting to defend him and his ridiculous policy but the fact that he's been independently repetitively blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia makes me sooner see such individuals as foolish. Netscott 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse~. Per Netscott's above comments -- Karl Meier 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Netscott.Timothy Usher 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia:Wikiethics still exists if you want to go edit that. What you did by copy and pasting it into your own user space was done only to get around the fact that it was about to be deleted it. That is, in an ironic way, unethical. I also frown up the nominating user for the advertising of this discussion [93], [94], [95], etc. 6 advertisements in total. Metros232 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I've got no supernatural skill to see the future. How could I have acted upon a "fact", which still lied ahead? Raphael1 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why did you copy and paste it to yours then? If you didn't think it was going to be deleted, why did you need a copy of your own instead of just editing the one that existed at Rgulerdem's user page? Why did you think that two needed to exist? Metros232 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed I did suspect, that it might get deleted in the future, but I certainly didn't know about that. I still don't see, how it is in any way unethical to take over the work of an indef-banned user. Besides User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics shouldn't have been removed as well since G5 only applies for pages created by banned users while they were banned. Raphael1 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, copy of a previously rejected attempt at censorship. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted since this was proposed at Wikipedia:Wikiethics and solidly rejected I see no particular merit in keeping it hanging around in user space in a form which (at first glance) looks to be even less acceptable. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not going to endorse or overturn my own deletion, though I will say to Raphael1 that if he wants the content, he needs to hold a DRV on the original page (User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) because copy & pasted pages cannot possibly exist when the original page is deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've read through this deletion review, and what I'm missing is any argument for why this page should exist. Why maintain a copy of a rejected policy written by a banned user? How does it help write the encyclopedia? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder, why you even ask that question. Shouldn't you rather ask, why should that page be removed? Nevertheless I will answer your question: Rgulerdem and some other editors worked on this former prematurely rejected policy in userspace to avoid controversy with opposing parties. I'd like to continue Rgulerdems work, which is why I've created a copy. Raphael1 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think it's pretty clear from reading this discussion that it's being removed because it's the work of a banned editor, and seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people. At that point, the ball's back in your court - if so many Wiki regulars are against it, what's so great about it to make it worth the static you incur by recreating it? I've asked a more pertinent question at your talk page. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, a bad way to start is by pissing a bunch of people off by acting as proxy for a banned user, practically speaking. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't believe, that you are repeating Netscotts accusation ("proxy editing"). I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality. What's so bad about the work of this banned editor, that it needs to be removed? Will you remove Interfaith as well, because it's mostly his work? IMHO this whole agitation to delete User:Rgulerdems work and keep it deleted, is a clear sign, that Rgulerdem hasn't been blocked for his behaviour, but for the position he has taken on various topics. Raphael1 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't enter the conversation just assuming that Netscott is lying; why not trust that I'm taking his word in, whadyecallit... good faith? So you say you're not being his proxy. I don't have any evidence to say which of you is right. I know basically nothing about Rgulerdem. I still think you're running into a lot of static, and would probably try a different approach, if I were in your position, and if I were more interested in results than in drama. You choose your battles - is it more important to you to influence Wikipedia in a positive direction, or to do it using this particular guy's words? There's reasons to stand on principle, and there's reasons not to. You can probably cause a big scene, if you set your mind to it, but that'll poison the policy you're talking about in the community's eyes even more. Have you noticed some pretty stiff opposition to this policy? If I were you, I'd be sitting back from this DRV and trying to start some conversations about what's so incompatible between this proposal of yours and the current state of Wikipedia - you haven't replied to my post on your talk page where I'd love to have that conversation with you, if you're down to have it. Come on, don't knock your head against this wall, it won't move. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I have done a little work on this proposal and having a record of it is helpful in case anyone decides to work on it in the future. Also, as a comment to the closing admin, despite insinuations to the contrary, advertising a deletion reveiw is not a violation of any policy. Johntex\talk 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted once and for all. Metamagician3000 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, we don't need a banned user's disruptive attempt at policy-making resurrected in anybody's userspace. —Stormie 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. (Personal attack removed) of a banned user. Unwelcome. Big Blue Marble 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

03 June 2006

Sydney Roosters Season articles

Three articles I created simultaneously, that being Roosters1908; SydneyRoosters1909; and SydneyRoosters1910 were deleted in the last few days. The Sydneyroosters1909 article held a debate for the deletion while I had only added little content to the page, the article was then up for deletion before I had done any updates. While the debate took place I continued doing the updates, as seen in the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydneyroosters1909

I have plead my case to show that there are updates coming and its justification of existence.

I had also created a fourth article, however this was later and I must add that I created the page before the others were deleted. The fourth article; Sydney Roosters 1911 Season was created and included the updates I had promised with the 3 previous articles.

However when this article was put to debate re: deletion, the general consensus so far has been to keep the article based on the argument brought forward by Athenaeum who states; 'Wikipedia is an almanac. It says so in the first sentence of Wikipedia:What is an article. This is verifiable real world information. It is not indiscrimate, and deleting it would do some harm and absolutely no good. Wikipedia is a free reference resource and this is mainstream reference material.'

Considering the 3 previous articles were exact replicas in structure to the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season only differing in factual content, I propose that if the outcome of the debate be to keep the Sydney Roosters 1911 Season that the 3 previous articles be restored as this argument brought forward by Athenaeum was not put forward re: the debate of the other 3 articles.Sbryce858 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AKMask/log

April Fools Day this year included a minor invasion of the GNAA IRC chat by members of wikipedia crapflooding with very informative information about Keynesian economics. Deleted with the note of Privacy Violation. Note the GNAA has no rules against logging the chats, and infact encourages their members, which granted we are not, to do so. There was no privacy violation. I humbly request it to be undeleted.Edit:Also to note, it was linked to off the BJAODN page for the April fools day section. -Mask 09:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I think you got the name wrong. There's no deleted content at the pagename you provided. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I did, fixed now (dang capital letter) -Mask 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Male Unbifurcated Garment

Regarding "Male Unbifurcated Garment", (the article should have been named "Male unbifurcated garments") which was deleted after this AFD, and the subsequent deletion review. I closed the AfD as delete (a decision that I believe reflected the AfD consensus), and for which someone started a silly RFC against me. I believe the AfD and DRV discussions were unneccesarily perturbed by personal opinions (especially by those supporting the article). While editing Men's fashion freedom (which is propaganda for a non-notable movement, and should be deleted), I searched for Male unbifurcated garments and found that this is the most common term used to refer collectively to kilts, caftans, lungis, tupenus, dashikis, hakamas etc, for men. I think the reason why consensus was to delete the article is because it was being used by proponents of "Men's fashion freedom" to popularize their cause, and that those who "voted" against intended to deprive them of using wikipedia for propaganda – meanwhile, useful encyclopedic information went lost. I cannot safely revive this article (even if severely rewritten) without some consensus. I therefore request that the article be taken back to AfD. The previous AfD, after all, did have good arguments to keep, and the DRV was doomed from the beginning because of certain somewhat incivil artitudes. --Ezeu 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Requesting speedy close. Male unbifurcated garments has been created. --Ezeu 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recreating deleted content at a different title merely makes it necessary to speedy-delete the recreated page. By the way, the manual of style says that articles should be created at the singular anyway. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was deleted after a deletion vote on the criteria that the term was not very popular but the phenomenon is very common. It was sent for a deltion review for undeletion where the deletion was not reverted. I propose renaming and redirecting of the article to a new name ("Man-Skirt") which was found by some participants in the votes to be more common. So vote Redirect for supporting the motion , that is to rename and redirect to Man-Skirt, and Keep Deleted for opposing the motion that is to keep the article deleted.

Unitedroad 08:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I does not matter to me. MUGs, Manskirts, man's skirts, male skirts, whatever. This needs to be mentioned somewhere. Just as I suspected (and the reason why I brought this here), it does not matter in which way one tries to create an article describing this particularity, it will be speedily deleted merely out of principle. --Ezeu 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is to question deletion process. AFD, community consensus, has agreed it should be deleted. Therefore, keep deleted. NSLE (T+C) at 08:13 UTC (2006-06-03)
  • Keep Deleted Didn't we just close a DRV on this? Fan1967 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: It's a tunic, and it's what everyone wore before pants -- "shirt" <-Anglo-Saxon "skirt" <-Old Norse, same garment. <shrug> No undeletion. Geogre 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as there is no reason for resurrecting it under a NEW neologism. If there is material in it that is of value to merge elsewhere, ask an admin to give you a userification. There is no need for multiple DRVs that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and close this DRV - the last one ended less than two weeks ago. You can just write a new article under a new name if you want this to be on WP, there's no need to undelete this just to rename and rewrite it... - ulayiti (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Only 755 GHits? It's not just a neologism, it's a wikineologism. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Validly deleted in process, confirmed by deletion review. Article had no references at all. Sources meeting the reliable source guidelines have still not been cited, nor convincing evidence that the term is in widespread use. Nothing has changed significantly since the AfD or DRV. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The term has very limited currency outside the "male fashion freedom" community. Actually, virtually no currency outside of that community as far as I can tell, and I looked into it in some considerable detail. The current situation, where it is discussed in men's fashion freedom seems entirely sensible. I would support a protected redirect (protected because the proponents of the term are on a mission to promote it, as evidence prior debates). I would also take issue with it being the most widely used term: excluding kiltmen and WP yields something over 8000 ghits for "male unbifurcated garments", but repeating the search with "skirts for men" gets over 13k ghits. Even within the highly restricted locus of those seeking to discuss this topic (which is primarily Western, since they are normal in many countries) I see no compelling evidence that this is the most widely used term. Few if any of the mainstream articles on celebrities who briefly followed the fashion trend for skirts mention the term, it appears to be used solely in the context of the fashion freedom movement. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete. Numerous print references, websites, and manufacturers confirm usage (as I have pointed out over and over). These references have nothing to do with the fashion freedom movement. --JJay 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed you did, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment. I checked your New York Times reference, Feuer, Alan (2004) "Do Real Men Wear Skirts? Try Disputing A 340-Pounder," and it checks out. Changing vote accordingly. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that what the article says, as far as I recall, is that the movement calls them that, not that they are widely called that. "male unbifurcated garment" (in quotes) still gets under 500 ghits, and there is still, despite the incessant protestations of its proponents, no evidence of its widespread mainstream use, still less that this is the usual term for these garments. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... and "male unbifurcated garments" gets 8,540 ghits. --Ezeu 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you click through the first few pages of these results, Google discards nearly all of them as "very similar", leaving only 42. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You also find that a good many trace back to the top hit, the kiltmen community. Which appears to be where it originated, and where the advocates come from. Most of those hits are forum posts anyway. Despite all the arm-waving, thew advocates of this term have yet to provide a single credible reference showing that this is the generally used term to describe these garments, or giving any significant usage outside of the small men's fashion freedom community in which context we have pretty much its sole mention in the mainstream press. One article saying that this group uses the term is not really enough, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, undelete, and relist on AfD. Or, those interested can create a new article under this title that cites sources, presents a more neutral, less promotional point of view, and does not read like a personal essay. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, we don't need to keep discussing this ad nauseum. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, no process violation apparent, the new references are not really convincing of the notability of this term. Incidentally, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom. (Just stumbled across it via a cleanup of High-heeled shoe, which until recently also featured an exhortation on why men should feel good about wearing shirts...) Sandstein 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was here last week. --Rory096 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. JJay did some excellent research in the last Deletion Review discussion documenting the uses of this phrase. I concluded from that research that this neologism is in infrequent use primarily in human interest stories about this small group of activists. No new evidence has been presented convincing me that this decision should be revisited yet. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Rossami. Several advocates of deletion from the original AfD (including me) have indicated that they were aware of JJay's sources. In the AfD/DRV discussion of this topic, it's been noted that, for most men who wear unbifurcated garments outside the Western world, they're just normal clothing. Thus, I suggest that anyone who wants to write about this in an NPOV, non-soapboxy way, could find a way to fit it into the article Clothing or its offshoots. FreplySpang 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Undelete - This term is in widespread use among some circles. Wiki includes detailed articles on information specific to very small circles, yet bans information that's in considerably wider use simply because it offends someone's sensibilities? MUGs isn't a new fad - it's the continuation of what men have been wearing for tens of thousands of years, and what approximately a third of men throughout the world routinely wear today. If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein. If they apply to MUGs, they apply elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.180.34 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    This is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole which has infested every previous discussion of this topic. You say that if we delete this term used by a very small group of people and scoring a negligible number of unique Google hits, then we must also delete a word used by millions every day. Assertions like that make it almost impossible to take this subject even slightly seriously: the actions of the proponents of this term have consistently given the impression of zealots with little or no connection to reality, and this is no exception. Just zis Guy you know? 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per JJay. Clearly notable.  Grue  12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So a single newspaper article which notes that a small group uses a given neologism is sufficient to make it clearly notable? Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really need to ask you to stop spreading misinformation as you complain about "ludicrous hyperbole" and "zealots" with "no connection to reality". After stating repeatedly that no sources exist [96], [97], [98], and failing to respond or blatantly ignoring any of the sources offered [99] [100] ,you seem to have now recognized one. Since I know of at least 25 print sources, and a number of manufacturer websites, here are a few links you might find enlightening: The Scotsman, NY Times, Pittsburgh Tribune,Lucire fashion magazine Village Voice- Para 2, New York Magazine, Little India magazine, Out in the Mountains- book review, Reno Gazette, etc. etc. Of course this does not include many sources I can not easily link to such as Newsday, The Economic Times (India) or some of the Australian print sources. The following manufacturer sites also sell unbifurcated garments as prominently shown on their websites: Macabi, Macabi again Utilikilts. This obviously ignores the widespread usage on blogs and the web. The extent of the "notability" of the trend can certainly be debated...and as shown by the links, the term can vary depending on the source. But please stop the nonsense about google hits, zealots, no reliable sources, arm waving, and the like. --JJay 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJay, do you not think that the statement If you delete this, I will recommend you delete "skirt," "dress," and "pants" for whatever reasons you provide herein is ludicrous hyperbole? How many references to skirt, dress and pants are there? How many to the term "male unbifurcated garment"? We've been assured that Googling for MUG is a good test for its currency despite the fact that the vast majority of hits are for the ceramic containers. I have seen no credible evidence that this term has any currency outside the (very small) men's fashion freedom movement, and it was in that context that the few mentions we have were made. Right now it is covered in men's fashion freedom, which contextualises it nicely. It has been deleted through valid process and after much discussion, and that deletion has already been confirmed once. No new evidence is being presented here as far as I can tell, it's just a case of them keep asking until they get what they want. Sorry, but that pushes my parental "no means no" button. The clincher for me is that in all the coverage of the prominent men who have been seen wearing skirts (Beckham, Cruise, Gaultier etc.) this term is pretty much absent. The only references I can find linking Beckham to the term, for example, come from the usual source: kiltmen. It is their private conceit which has no real currency. They really really want it to have some currency (read: protologism) but as yet it has pretty much none outside of themselves, and WP:NOT the place to fix that. Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. A silly, non-notable term. Also the fact that a DRV on this just ended not too long ago. WarpstarRider 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

02 June 2006

Template:User hate profanity

Speedy deletion. The text of the userbox says "This user does not tolerate profanity." This'd refer to user conduct, since wikipedia is not censored. How is this divisive? Is there a danger of an anti-profanity cabal forming? The userbox is good in highlighting a form of incivility that wikipedia can do without. I'm not a big userbox warrior, so please take this request seriously. Andjam 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Divisive

Penis banding

I have no idea what this page is about, but User:JoeCool722 requested a deletion review. I've asked him to comment on what the page was about. // The True Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis banding. No idea what it is, probably don't want to know. Fan1967 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain until I can see the conecpt of the page. If it's gone through an AfD already (per below), then I agree with it and endorse delete. // The True Sora 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The AFD was properly concluded and this was a valid deletion. As for the article text, I'm assuming that this - http://www.answers.com/topic/penis-banding - from answers.com is the text of the article, by the way. Most of the google hits are related to each other, so it strikes me as a non-notable neologism unless there is evidence otherwise. BigDT 02:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletionTimothy Usher 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm putting my faith in the AfD determining this one to be a neologism. --StuffOfInterest 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This is the first Wikipedia article I've written. I decided to write the article because there is a noticable lack of information on this topic. This is a not uncommon practice that is performed in BDSM and other contexts. I supposed my confusion over the deletion is that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles related to Body Modification and BDSM. During the initial deletion discussion someone mentioned that there was not a large amount of supporting evidence that this pratice exists. While that was part of my original reasoning to create the article, there are other articles from reputable sources like the following link [101]. I must say I'm very surprised at the apparant lack of open-mindedness. The article was put up a while ago, and even had various edits from other users as well as people linking to it. I don't feel that just because some folks may not understand or agree with a practice is a reason for removal. I do not feel that this article is out of line with numerous other Wikipedia articles, i.e. Transscrotal_piercing, Suspension_(body_modification), Body_nullification, Penis_removal. The Body Nullification article makes an interesting point regarding how many less mainstream practices have become more well known as people are discovering each other as a result of the Internet. That said, as a member of the BDSM community, I can say that this is not an unheard of activity. It's typically more commonly performed on the testicles, but frequnetly done to the penis. It's even discussed in the book "Family Jewels, A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment." Another consideration is that within the BDSM Community many things are passed on via word of mouth. Many people meet at various BDSM related gatherings and are taught various techniques and practices that are not necessarily well documented. Hence my effort to try to take some time and better document this practice. We run into a frustrating Catch-22 where where Wikipedia prefers to have "verifiable" sources, yet, until someone writes something on the topic, it's not "verifiable." There's a bit of a flaw in logic as just because something is not easily verifiable does not necessarily indicate that it's not a valid practice. However, just because someone writes something in a book really doesn't prove that practice to be valid. As mentioned, the BDSM community is historically been a word of mouth type of community as it has not always been well accepted. While I don't have the resources/time to try to write an actual book on more advanced BDSM related techniques, I felt sharing some knowledge of a not well documented practice would have been well received by Wikipedia. JoeCool722 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no catch-22 at all. Wikipedia deliberately chooses NOT to be a primary source. In fact, it is considered a tertiary source. In other words, Wikipedia will report on things that have been clearly documented and verified elsewhere. Wikipedia does not serve as the primary, initial source for anything. Fan1967 15:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BME website is referenced as an ezine in an existing Wikipedia Article - BME_(website), As per the link in my original post, Banding is referenced in the encyclopedia section of BME as well as numerous other areas of the site. I know we're getting into a fuzzy area regarding "verifiability" but I think a lot of the existing articles in this category are not extensively documented and therefore "verifiable."
  • The fact that there is no information on this "out there" is the very reason there cannot be an article on WP, as stated above and elsewhere. WP:NOR refers. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I must say this is more than a little disappointing. I had hoped that Wikipedia as a group would be more open-minded. I'm not asking anyone to agree with the practice, or take part in it. But I don't think it should be censored because some folks don't understand it. I would ask that the decision on this article be made based on policy as opposed to opinion. I'm working on tracking down some additional verifiable resources. Please let me know the best way to proceed to ensure this article remains listed in compliance with policy. JoeCool722 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I've cited a book and the BME website that has been around for more than 10 years and is recognized by Wikipedia. Most people familiar with the Body Modification subject would recognize BME and Shannon who runs BME as an expert resource on the topic. Will the items I've already cited suffice? Or do I need to locate more? I know there were a few more books that had references to banding in them. Please Advise JoeCool722 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD arguments were convincing, and there has been no error in procedure. Still not verifiable, as referencing a website in its entirety is not sufficient - we need specific links or quotes regarding the existence and notability of this activity. Sandstein 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually the first reference is to a specific page in BME regarding banding. I also cited a book. I believe this is getting away from the spirit of Wikipedia and becoming a push to squash something that is not understood. What I really don't understand is there are a dozen other articles in similar subject areas on Wikipedia that are not citing anything and they've been there for a while. I'm really surprised that there is no leniency allowed.

  • Relist First let me thank the administrators. I’ve had a delightful time going through all my books to find resources for them. It’s always fun to re-read favorite books. Many of these can be bought on Amazon. I’ve also included an article from a well known in the BDSM scene magazine. It has also been brought to my attention that Freud covered some of the penis binding (they didn’t have elastrators in his time) in his works. While he considered fetishism a deviant practice the recent American Psychological Association has declared it not to be so since the 1970’s.
If there is a vote I believe the comments “ Keep it deleted and disable undelete for this page. This is really sick. An encyclopedia is no place for this. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” and “Speedy Delete Don't even want to know what it is. QuizQuick 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)” should not apply as these are clearly bias and not related to actual policy.
Here are a few books that discuss penile banding and related Cock and Ball Tortures:
  • The Family Jewels: A Guide to Male Genital Play and Torment (Paperback) by Hardy Haberman
  • Intimate Invasions: the erotic ins & outs of enema playby M.R. Strict
  • Female Dominance: Rituals and Practices by Claudia Varrin
  • Leatherfolk by Mark Thompson
  • Tony DeBlase aka Fledermaus 1993, 'Male Genitorture (Also known as Cock and Ball Torture, CBT)' in Sandmutopia Guardian 14, pp14-22
  • Trust, the Hand Book: A Guide to the Sensual and Spiritual Art of Handballing by Bert Herrman
  • Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
  • -- 1953, 'Three Essays on Sexuality' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol VII, London: Hogarth
  • -- 1953a, 'Fetishism' in the Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works Vol XXI (written in 1927), London: Hogarth
  • Undelete, because of all the people saying "I trust the original AfD" (what do you think the Deletion review process is for then?) and because this is clearly a well-documented practice in its own cultural niche. &#0151; JEREMY 15:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been my frustration from the beginning. I missed the initial deletion review as I got busy with work. My wife went to send the link to someone and realized it was gone. Most of the comments in the initial deletion discussion and in this deletion review have been blanket agreements citing the fact that an AfD took place. I would rather have people look at this and assess it for themselves. And of course there are those that just say it should be deleted because it's "Sick" I don't think an individuals personal comfort on a subject should be related to it's inclusion in Wikipedia. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been asking for this from the beginning. This was my first article that I've ever written for Wikipedia. I didn't back it up as I didn't realize it could just be deleted without a chance to go change it back. I read somewhere that there is some process in place to restore the article temporarily during a deletion review, but I don't know how else to go about requesting this. Any assistance from some of the more seasoned Wikipedians would be appreciated. JoeCool722 18:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

01 June 2006

Template:User no notability

NN This user hates notability and how it is used mercilessly on AfD as policy.


Here is the template, why was it deleted? No one posted anything on the TfD page Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User no notability. It is a valid, useable userbox that shouldnt be deleted, just like ones that state POV can be used in userboxes or ones that state that they are inclusionist... Also, there was a TfD that reflected consensus, but this UB was speedy deleted and no message was left on the TfD page. Sorry for the ditto. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete as bad-faith deletion. --Disavian 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted shows a disrect to an accepted, wide consensus policy, template space is for encyclopedic endeavors, not the advocacy of eliminationg them. Userfy, subst, let people keep it, but get it out of encyclopedic space. -Mask 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not policy. You people are the reason this UB was created. Because you don't understand: Essays carry so much less weight than policy. There's an essay saying that all TV show summarys should be deleted. It must be put into effect since you consider essays policy. Besides, it was not a CSD. There is a TfD going on about it that reflected a Keep consensus, but the deleter ignored it, deleted it, AND didn't even close the TfD debate! -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted This one clearly has the potential to divide Wikipedians and to inflame Wikipedians, which makes it a T1 CSD candidate. But I did learn something from my pre-conclusion research. Of course, someone should implement the German solution on it. GRBerry 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment after more thought and some more discussion. The most troubling word is "hates". But there clearly could be versions that would not be inflammatory. So the salting of the earth is too strong a response - overturn only the salting and put a warning on the talk page of the template that language like "disagrees with", "rejects", or "would like to out that notability is only an essay, not a guideline or policy" is acceptable, but that vehement language like "hates" and "mercilessly" is inappropriate. GRBerry 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as bad-faith userbox. Obviously divisive in intent, probably speediable. --Calton | Talk 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as the subject it addresses is not notable.Timothy Usher 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - not notable per Timothy Usher. ;) (Actually, it is argumentative, divisive, etc.) Metamagician3000 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - I am almost convinced that this should exist, because unlike the vast majority of userboxen that have no relevance to Wikipedia (or at least should not), like "This User is Christian" or "This user licks Goats", this is actually relevant to wikipedia and is the kind of content that fits well on a userpage. It's not exactly the same kind of bumper-sticker crap that most userboxes are. It is still divisive though.. --Improv 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a milder one? Proposal:
NN This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh no, that's still far too divisive and inflammatory, don't you know? Consider this:
NN This user is interested in the critical examination of the notability essay as criteria for deletion on AfD

—Ashley Y 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why? That one is like a censored version thats too positive. Why not this:
NN This user is against the views of the notability essay.

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed
  • relist why can't he have an Article i mean why can Syed not have one but michelle dewberry have one, syed has done lots of things aswell as appearing on The Apprentice he appeared in the Celebrity world cup sixes and he is the head of IT People. Bobo6balde66 20:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. No new evidence has been presented that would suggest that a new discussion would reach a different decision. Endorse closure (content deleted, protected redirect). Rossami (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --Disavian 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Kimchi.sg 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure — unanimous original AfD, and good content already included in The Apprentice (UK series 2). No good reasons have been presented for re-creating this article - the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to merit his own article. A redirect already ensures a reader entering his name can find a brief biography on the relevant article. The fact that Michelle Dewberry has an article is not a reason to undelete this — if her notability is in question that article should be listed at WP:AFD. Finally, IT People, his company was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT People, so the fact that he is the CEO of a company deemed non-notable should be no reason for undeleting this article either. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Reality shows have, by now I hope, settled down: if the contestant becomes notable aside from the appearance, then the person is notable. If the person is merely one face among many squabbling and scratching, then the person should be discussed at the show's article. When the person breaks away from the show in fame, then the article breaks away from the show. This individual has not, at least yet. Geogre 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Rossami. Nobody cares about The Apprentice. --mboverload@ 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I watched The Apprentice, enjoyed it, and I absolutely agree with Mboverload: I still don't care. If he ever becomes independently notable, then he gets his own article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Shin Do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_Shin_Do

Undelete Ho Shin Do I worked hard to put up good information on the page and added more info to give backing on the origins of the martial art. I feel that the style itself is worthy of being listed here and train in it with the best of intentions for the founders. The martial art has legitimate roots in Korean martial arts, and I sincerely hope that the deleted can be re-considered. Frankiefuller 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)frankiefuller, 03:33 (EST), 6-10-06. I say Overturn and Undelete[reply]

  • endorse closure. This was a valid AfD with a unanimous "delete" result, I could see no significant and substantial differences between the version as of the deletion nomination and the version as of the afd closure (with the exception of the picture being added, which is not enough), so there was no additional information that was not available to the early voters that may have made them change their minds. Thryduulf 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Thryduulf. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, so what is necessary to make it stay? I could put in a great amount of detail about the art itself and the structure of the system. Man you guys are so stubborn, there are many more sub-par articles out there than this. What makes you guys particular academic experts here, and how many of you are martial arts scholars? Heck, I could get deep into the philosophical side of this if you like. Let's go, baby, I love debates. Politics, after all, is what I'm studying for my doctoral program.Frankiefuller 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Man, people commit murder all the time, why do you have to arrest me?" The existence of poor articles does not justify the existence of poor articles; in this case, the lack of notability of the subject makes it a poor candidate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Objectivist-C 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not academic experts. We are reporters of academic experts. If there are experts out there discussing this fellow, and if the art has made sufficient splash to be discussed in multiple contexts, then there should be an article. The presence of an article doesn't make something good, and the absence doesn't make it bad; there is no judgment of worth, only of need. Geogre 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep undeleted per FrankiefullerQuizQuick 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now or userfy with leave to present when appropriate - here is the article from google cache - [102] - the fact that there are multiple schools teaching this kind of Tae Kwon Do says to me that it is notable. The only problem I see with the article is that it is entirely original research. For that reason and that reason alone, I believe that the deletion is appropriate, but if Frankiefuller would like to rewrite or modify the article as to include other references, I don't see any reason why the subject is not permissible. BigDT 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy with leave to present when appropriate. Let frankiepoo show you that the article is not original research. I can show that the wheel is not being re-invented and can point out how the art has borrowed from several distinctly Korean arts. I am going to go ahead and try modifying the information and then presenting it after I can authenticate the specific data to show non-original research.72.145.93.79 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Frankiefuller[reply]
  • Endorse closure. This was a unanimous deletion discussion. While this group may and probably does have "legitimate roots in Korean martial arts", no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that this is significant offshoot deserving of a separate article-page. No evidence has been presented to justify overturning the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency - closed as "keep" on 15 Jan 06
Speedy-deleted as "vanity page by banned user" on 10 May 06
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Israel News Agency - closed as "overturn speedy and list on AFD" on 23 May 06
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) - closed for procedural irregularities on 29 May 06
Speedy-deleted as "more of the same nonsense" on 1 Jun 06

It passed its original deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel news agency, but when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination) was created, the closing administrator said that because someone didn't follow process and grouped arguements into those for keeping and deleting, that the individual discussion was broken beyond repair. The administrator stated that he had no prejudice toward reopening the debate for a third time, then the article was again deleted by Danny, so I'm requesting it again be created and relisted. Daniel Bush 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if Danny is the person who deleted it, why did User:Sean Black salt the earth? GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Self-promotion of a non-notable non-agency by a banned user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as out-of-process deletion. If someone believes that something was missed in the first AFD, then relist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. It's still a nonnotable blog that anyone who was clever enough to register a name like that could set up. --Improv 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be deleted but I think we should do it properly. Overturn the speedy-deletion, relist on AFD and I'll help watch the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wasn't this thing deleted via WP:OFFICE? If so, WP:SNOW--Rayc 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my goodness, the second AfDs closing admin's note of procedural irregularities is certainly true. That is a major refactoring from when I last saw the page. (I was the first to make a non-comment response.) I wish, however, that the closing admin had immediately opened a third AFD... It was in AFD via a community decision. I think Resend to AFD is the appropriate outcome, but it is a borderline call, concluded this way because process is important and because the refactoring appears not to have been done by the articles author or one of the new voices brought in. GRBerry 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, should probably go to AfD again, but definitely undelete it. This abuse of process has got to stop. We have rules here—follow them. Everyking 03:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just taking the piss. Undelete, do not relist anywhere, and censure the admin who deleted it against consensus. There is no point having shitloads of policy documents and votes on this, that and the other if privileged users can just ignore them out of personal animus. Also censure the admin who has protected the page. This is an egregious abuse of his powers that has become too common these days. The consensus was that there should be an article: protecting it so that there cannot be is completely unacceptable. Apologies for not signing in. -- Grace Note.
  • SPEEDY Undelete per Grace Note. --Col. Hauler 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. nn blog, clear sentiment to delete among non-sock, non-meatpuppets. We should stop wasting our time, and stop allowing the associated harrassment of legitimate editors over this. NoSeptember talk 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please list all of these sock or meat puppets--or if the list would be shorter everyone who's opinions you find valid? Yes, there are those that I would call foopuppets on the keep side, but there are also several legitimate users. Kotepho 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Puppets are listed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach



Recently concluded

2006 June

  1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
  38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
  45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
  62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
  86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
  89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
  102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
  114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
  123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
  127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=57393445"