Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steel archer (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 11 June 2006 (→‎[[Siberian language]]). 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.

  • none currently listed

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 July 31}}</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 July 31}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 31|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

11 June 2006

Sydney Ling

I feel that this one was badly handled on account of two things - I believe that there was clearly a consensus (and just a few votes shy of a supermajority) for deleting the article. Even more troubling, however, is the fact that the moderator Mailer diablo literally closed the debate and then actually retired from Wikipedia! (At least according to his user page - this all has happened today.) In any case, I'm a bit distressed both because of the outcome and the fact that the mod just got up and left the community straight after. I believe that this was mishandled, and I'd advocate an overturn and delete; here's the original AfD. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 13:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shame about Mailer leaving; it does mean we can't ask him to explain himself. This seems a borderline case; I'd suggest overturning the close and relisting. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse closure. I think you are confusing the way these deletion debates are handled. Consensus is a higher standard than a mere supermajority. It means that we pay as much or more attention to the weight of arguments as we do to the weight of numbers. Reviewing the discussion, I make a vote-count of 16 "delete" to 7 "keep" (with one probable troll discounted). Had there been strong evidence, that could have been sufficient to interpret as the necessary "rough consensus" for deletion. In this case, however, the arguments focused on whether the person is notable enough to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies and neither side of this debate presented strong evidence either way. Furthermore, many of the participants explicitly qualified their opinions as "weak" (5 of the "keeps" were phrased as "weak keep" and 2 of the "deletes" were "weak delete"). Closing this discussion as "no consensus" seems to me to be well within the reasonable discretion of a closing admin.
    Note: a "no consensus" decision defaults to keep for now but does not prevent anyone from gathering stronger evidence and renominating it for deletion after a reasonable delay. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly, does one gain stronger evidence of non-notability? You cannot prove a negative, right? I understand that it is not merely a matter of votes, but I offered up what I could, and no one else had much to say. This may be because there wasn't much left to say - those for keeping didn't speak up to justify their votes, while those who voted to delete explained their specific rationale (re notability). Were they expected to expound on it for a full paragraph each? Clearly they felt the matter was a simple one and didn't feel the need to orate on it. While I respect that this isn't necessary what is sought after in an AfD, please let me know what else could have been done, if something wasn't handled well. Girolamo Savonarola 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian language

This page has been unilaterally deleted by moderator Alex Bakharev, based on a VfD of more than a year ago. I should point out, however, that a lot of things can change in a year's time, and I have such a feeling that this is the case here. Besides, the contents of the recreated article was completely different from the previous (deleted) version. I should also point out that there is a pending request for a wikipedia in the language, and therefore I think this article is not only of value, but even necessary. I propose undeleting it immediately and issuing a normal AfD procedure instead. — --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 09:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain - The current contents are indeed vastly different than the old, and it does seem perhaps a bit odd to delete as a recreate of a validly deleted article. That being said, the new content was incredibly poor, with bad spelling, links to livejournal, and many of the other markers of a poor article. I also wonder whether it's appropriate to call this a language -- by the article it sounds more like a description of a dialect (perhaps like calling a Boston accent a Boston language?). In sum, I don't know if there's any content worth keeping, and the title's probably misleading too. I'm open to lines of reasoning by other people on this one. --Improv 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Utter nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as the "Siberian language". --Timothy Usher 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - The language was developed from the time of last deletion, now it is very complicated, many texts translated and written, many people learning it, a big site launched, so it is not "non-notable" conlang now --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I absolutely agree with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. By the way, the site about siberian language and test wiki on siberian --Steel archer 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. --Pjacobi 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, looking at the article, the VfD was as valid today as it was last year. --fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable constructed language. There are no independent, neutral sources to confirm the existance of a specific "Siberian language" as described in the article. There are several languages spoken in Siberia, but this article does not adress any of them. --Ezeu 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The test wiki is not an independent reliable source. Much of it is written by some people participating here. --Ezeu 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Siberian language was prohibited in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. And now, most of people which are against this language are russian imperialists indeed. And this is a reason why it is rather difficult to find sources about siberian. There are no full literature siberian language: Yaroslav Zolotaryov just constructs it basing on many siberian dialects. So, you can hardly ever find people speak on ""literature"" siberian - only on its dialects. --Steel archer 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to AfD: from my reading in linguistics I would expect it to be deleted there, but it would give non-admins the chance to debate the deletion on the merits of its content, especially as it doesn't seem to meet the recreated content CSD. --Aquilina 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - This page needs to be undeleted. The language has already been constructed. It is based on a local dialect, but its' origins are really beside the point. There is, for example, a wiki page for Talossan language, that has been constructed by a single person for a country completely invented by him, and whose "words and grammar are just made up at random". Surely Siberian has far better basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.29.135 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The speedy-deleted version was significantly different from the deleted version. On that basis, I'm afraid that we must overturn the speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. However, I am deeply skeptical that the article will prevail during the deletion discussion. The prior deletion discussion was unanimous and included the opinion of the alleged author of this recently constructed language. None of the concerns raised in the prior deletion debate have been answered either in the redeleted article nor in this discussion so far. The wiki does not meet the required standards for a reliable source and the google test (168 unique hits) returns very little that appears relevant. Every hit I scanned used the phrase "Siberian language" in the casual sense of "a language used by a community indiginous to the geographic area of Siberia", not in the sense of a unified language. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and relist per Aquilina. The version debated on VfD was a short stub, while the version deleted as G4 was fairly detailed. That said, I'd say the new version fails WP:OR pretty hard, and should be deleted or heavily shortened on that basis unless independent sources are provided. It's almost a WP:SNOW case, but I'm personally willing to give it its five days on AfD, just in case I'm proven wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some independent sources http://dpni.org/forum/post48701.html

http://e-novosti.info/forumo/viewtopic.php?t=1819 (discussion about necessary of tukr words are they allowed or not)

Kazakhstan article http://www.dialog.kz/site.php?lan=russian&id=76&pub=1032 (positive)

Ukrainian article http://lab.org.ua/article/727/ (positive)

Latvian forum http://www.evangelie.ru/forum/archive/t-14778-p-2.html (positive reaction)

Ukrainian forums http://forum.sevastopol.info/viewtopic.php?p=134921&sid=e1bfb2dad69ccbe92f653f8e69a61352 http://www.novy.tv/ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20068&sid=6dfe6e7e13df8be971f34aa81aa365c5 (positive reaction, people reciting verses in siberian)

Russian forum http://www.disenteria.ru/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=7492&s= (some people from Siberia testify that they know this words and grammar)

Moscow forum http://forum.msk.ru/wap/news.wml?id=2200 (negative reaction, but the language considered natural)

--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

This was closed on June 8 as 'no consensus'. The discussion is here. There were 5 delete votes and 5 keep votes. The decision not to delete needs review, and a closer look at four of the five users who cast "keep" votes. FunkyChicken!, UncleFloyd, ConeyCyclone, and Nigel Wick appear to possibly be the same person using many different accounts. See the history of those usernames on past AfDs, especially the recent WWAC-TV that was deleted as a hoax. The article should either be relisted for further consensus, or deleted. 70.108.82.120 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. 70.108.82.120 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
    • Nigel_Wick (talk · contribs) began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
    • ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs), UncleFloyd (talk · contribs) and FunkyChicken! (talk · contribs) show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
    • Nertz (talk · contribs) was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
    • Punt! (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was also created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
  • I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. Note that a request for checkuser has already been declined; I personally don't think one is necessary. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that overturn and relist is better. -Splash - tk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Splash's research showing that sockpuppetry may have affected the closing admin's decision. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, apparent sockfest. Just zis Guy you know? 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major_programming_languages

I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. LotLE×talk 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Möller

Was inappropriately speedied as recreation, which it wasn't. The originally AfD'd article (Erik Moeller) didn't mention that he was a published author, and the AfD was based on the idea that he's non-notable because the article just mentioned his temporary Wikimedia post. Thus the second article should go through AfD again. Margana 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

Despite establishing the relevance of theSMSzone.com and its creator as a pioneer of SMS spoofing, the article was deleted without, in my opinion, due consideration of the arguments presented. Phanatical 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's third edit to Wikipedia
    • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:
    1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [1] - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique. [2]
    2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
    3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
    4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone [3] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [4]
    5. MSN [5] and Yahoo [6] print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
    6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Wikipedia articles may not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.
    In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: [7]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Thanks, Kimchi. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OURS

This page was speedy-deleted out of process. It was nominated at MfD, then deleted by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with edit sum CSD G4. (This is the criterion that refers to recreated material but there is no previously-deleted version.) Sceptre then closed the MfD with the notation The result of the debate was speedy delete, G5. Rgulerdem had created the idea and theres about half-a-dozen threads on the mailing list by Rg about WP:OURS, Raphael is just acting through proxy. G5 is the criterion that refers to pages created by banned users.

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

1) The nomination was made at MfD and therefore the page in question was not eligible for speedy. No matter what, we do not wish that admins ignore or bypass community consensus. The nomination was not allowed to stand for even a single day before this admin took pre-emptive action. At this point 2 users have asked the page be kept, 2 that it be deleted, and 1 has made a comment that appears to question the wisdom of deletion.

2) Neither speedy criterion applies to this page. It does not prima facie appear to be a re-creation; therefore it fails G4. It was not created by a banned user operating under a sock; it was created by another editor, one in good standing. It is irrelevant whether the content was inspired by or even written originally by the banned user; the page was not so written. We are not in a position to ban all the words that have been written by people we don't like. The actual page creator, Raphael1 (talk · contribs), stated that he did not simply copy the banned user's words from the mailing list; but even if so, that would fail to invoke G5.

3) I object strongly to admin control of the policy-making process. Adminship is not a party favor or membership in the executive club; admins are to implement policy, not to control it. Policy is the right and responsibility of every editor. Once a proposal has been made, it ought never be subject to deletion by the whim of a single admin. The page in question may be wise or unwise but we all have a right to debate it.

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Wikipedia servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
  • Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Editor was openly working to post content for a banned user. Shell babelfish 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I don't see any reason to continue the disruption this page was causing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

The original request for deletion review has been refactored due to length, for clarity, and to remove gaudy formatting. It can be viewed in its entirety here. Kimchi.sg 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
  7. the souvener progam to the movie
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

And in the end, Angr listed the film synopsis for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). I chose to wait until the last day to cast my actual vote (though I did inset a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 27%, Merge - 4 votes 27%

Only 4 out 15 people voted to DELETE the article. An equal number wanted the article merged (i.e. unsplit) with the original main article. But the majority voted TO KEEP THE ARTICLE! Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was delete?

I contest this action – it can not be allowed to stand. These people have spit into the faces of the various members of the Wikipedia community and defied the final decision. If everyone had come on and said Delete, I would have no problem with this. But the majority voted to Keep the article. The action of deleting the article is therefore a morally and ethically wrong action that must not be allowed to stand. The majority at the time said that the article should not have been deleted. On that basis, I ask for the action to be reversed. -- User:Jason Palpatine speak your mind 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over a 2 month period, I showed more than enough facts to semonstrate that the charges leveled for AfD were untrue. Despite this the charges were upheld with the truth being totally ignored -- as just about everyone here is doing. I have laid out the truth in detail here. The facts are overwhelming -- but you and the other completly ognore it! -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Wikipedia for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.
    I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:
    • Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
    • If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
    • Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.
    If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have come to the conclusion that this would probably better fit on Wikibooks. --Improv 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has been said before elsewhere. In reply to the points/questions raised above:

Question #1: Are the books User:Jason Palpatine cites physically in his possession?

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat -- is physically in my possession.
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker -- Library copy (since returned)
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction) -- is physically in my possession.
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke) -- Library copy (since returned)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony -- is physically in my possession.
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film) -- is physically in my possession.
  7. the souvenir program to the movie -- is physically in my possession.
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child! -- is (as the comment indicates) physically in my possession.
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010 -- both are physically in my possession and read more than once.

In response to this question, I have ordered Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker and Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter today through www.amazon.com. Delivery estimate: June 19, 2006 - June 21, 2006

Question #2: If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?

  • Utilizing copyrighted materials is not allowed here. I am required to use my own words regardless of source material. As I understand things here, except for a few quotations (which are in the article) direct copyright material inclusion is not allowed. I must use my own words. It is these two policies that are being used in conflict to support the outlandish claim that the article is original research.
  • I have noted before that I do not understand how to do citations in an article. I've been to the instructions page and it is beyond my understanding.
  • How much of references do I need to cite? A sentence-by-sentence referencing is just too much IMHO. Also, when claims were made of WP:OR, no justification other than the accusation itself was offered. There is nothing to prevent anyone here from looking up and checking the references listed.. I am willing to commit some time to it. However, I am not an administrator and have other considerations such as my job to consider.

Question #3: If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In May, the following tags were applied to the main article:
{{cleanupdate}}
{{split}}

According to User:Scm83x: ”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”
I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with
Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)
in the main article.
If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article [as of 18:50, 18 April 2006] In other words, that original article material was produced by other editors here.
The following editors all contributed to the article in the month before I took a serious interest:
User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS
This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was
"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all."
The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

Question #4: What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:
13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)
11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)
Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

Question #5: Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

I was unaware of the fact that the DVD would be considered a valid listing. Your proposal is interesting. MORE than interesting. If such an undertaking would be allowed I would gladly do it!

Question #6: The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.

I do not know or understand how to create inline references. The istructions are beyond my comprehension.

Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub-article] inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to (Pasted from the original article Talk page):

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:
"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."
In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal WebPages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. -- Scm83x hook 'em 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but Wikipedia copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it.

My sources are list above.

When he made his decision, fuddlemark wrote:

"The result of the debate was delete. The arguments for deleting the article -- one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, unencyclopaedic tone -- are well made, and are not refuted in this discussion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

?

Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was DELETE?

OK. Lets go over it again:

The subjects were debated at length on Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) – with the deletion of the article, all of this has been lost.

Accusation -- Original Research.

  • In discussions(qv) over the past month I presented my side of the matter and my sources (listed above). The only way to demonstrate that the article is not original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. When the accusation was presented, I listed my sources – all reliable, published sources. The claim that this article contains any original research has been shown to be an outright lie.

Accusation -- one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source).

  • First, I have listed above 57 users who contributed to the article in the month prior to my involvement and the act of splitting of it from the main article about the film. This information was/is available in the edit history of the primary article 2001: A Space Odyssey (film).
  • Second, neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. No proof has been presented that the article at the time of the motion did not conform to this policy. The synopsis article was a recounting of the events in the film. What is being advocated by the detractors here was the complete absence and elimination of viewpoints – which is impossible in any written work. Writing style and presentation are factors in every presentation (because they are created by people); even when it is completely non-bias. Whether done by a single individual or the combined whole of 57 or more people (as in this case) the result will not be the elimination of viewpoints.
  • Third, there are no value opinions expressed in the article – only facts and quotations of comments by the creators and a select trio of paragraphs from the book that correlate clearly with the events being reported.

Accusation -- Unencyclopedic tone.

  • What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? There is nothing in the Wikipedia about it. The article is a recitation of a series of events. What about that could be considered “unencyclopedic?” This accusation is nonsense.
When my edits to the article came under ATTACK, I defended my position. I presented clear, concise arguments – whereupon I was accused of original research. I responded to this false accusation by citing my sources of information -- which were labeled "irrelevant"! That is called hypocrisy.

What more substantiation of this article do I need? I have asked this question time and again without any clear answer other than the repetition of the outlandish claims of “one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, and unencyclopaedic tone.”

If the facts I have listed here (and in discussions held on other talk pages for the past 2 months) do NOT refute the charges made in the motion to AfD the article, I would appreciate someone explaining to me how that is possible.

Finally, the vote tally. . Administrator fuddlemark commented in a message to me: “I can't imagine why you think the vote tally has any relevance to the way I or anyone else closes AfD discussions.” How can it not? A majority of people was of the opinion that deletion of the article was wrong. Arguments are unnecessary in light of majority opinion. When a majority says one thing, and the powers that be go against it – that is the big stick approach (i.e. Might makes right). Such an approach to the maintenance of a work as the Wikipedia is wrong. Even if the letter of the rules allows it, I consider it to be unethical under its spirit.

This last item is the primary (but not) only reason for my request here. The action is wrong. Also, for two months now I have time and again refuted the charges that were the basis of the motion for AfD. Isn’t that enough?

Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) speak your mind[reply]
  • Comment: No. That's not how these discussions are done. All deletion discussions (and deletion review discussions) are organized chronologically to the maximum extent possible. This makes it easier to return to the discussion to see if new evidence has been presented which might cause us to change our opinions.
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote and no delete arguments were refuted, as the closing admin said. --Rory096 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). This level of detail is clearly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. The closing admin was within reasonable discretion when closing the discussion and clearly articulated why the straight vote-count was overruled. Note: I have no objection to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of a transwiki to Wikibooks. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"no delete arguments were refuted"!!! Are you saying that everything I have laid out here does not refute any of the delete arguments? None at all? That makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. -- Jason Palpatine 06:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said: If the facts I have listed here (and in discussions held on other talk pages for the past 2 months) do NOT refute the charges made in the motion to AfD the article, I would appreciate someone explaining to me how that is possible.

Is there noone who will give this request of mine a clear point for point response. -- Jason Palpatine 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Underground

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was initially called for deletion by User:BenBurch who has a history of initiating edit wars & deletions on conservative pages such as Free Republic & White Rose Society. On January 17,2006 this proposed deletion was closed by User:Johnleemk, and the result of the debate was no consensus; keep. A second deletion debate was initiated on April 14, 2006 by User:Isotope23 and on April 20, 2006it was closed by admin User:(aeropagitica), resulting in a deletion. The Conservative Underground article had been vandalized countless times before it's deletion by the same people who voted for it's deletion. It is pretty obvious that these deletions are political motivated. Articles such as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Protest Warrior, Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers, Blogging Tories, etc... are allowed to remain.--James Bond 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. ad hominem fallacy, even supposing it were true ("BenBurch has a history..."; irrelevancy ("The...article had been vandalized countless times"); and begging the question ("It is pretty obvious..."): lots of rhetorical fallacies, there. About the only undisputedly true bit is "A second deletion debate ...result[ed] in a deletion", so let's leave it at that, absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing in the process or change in the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

08 June 2006

Joseph D. Campbell

This article was nominated for deletion, and was closed by User:9cds (not an admin, although going through RfA at the moment) as 'no consensus'. I think that was a poor call. The five people expressing the view that the article should be deleted made far better arguments - mainly about that annoying little fact that articles should be, you know, verifiable, and even if he was verifiable, he's not notable - than the three who thought it should be kept (including one weak keep, and one that said 'the sources will come organically', which is ridiculous). See the AfD for more details. I would have deleted this, and I recommend overturn the closure, and delete. Proto||type 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds(talk) 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as per MartinRe or at least relist. As previously mentioned, one reference is a letter to the editor. A person can write almost anything to the editor and get it published (perhaps not for very large newspapers, though). The other reference is a journal with a less than rigorous publication policy - it can't be incoherent. They also charge authors for publishing their work. Finally, the references were probably obtained from the subject's website, so they are really references for the website rather than for the article (there should be a policy about not using such second hand references if there isn't already). -- Kjkolb 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. No consensus is correct, but more debate is clearly needed since the problems with the article are significant and need to be addressed. Just zis Guy you know? 16:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality

(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion and salt the earth. Too many times in too many places, editor can always bring this to DRV again if the notability merits recreation. Shell babelfish 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinen's

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinen's
  • Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [8]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. . Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, [9], Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The regional importance of this organization--given that it is privately owned--signals its importance for inclusion and notability. Irongargoyle 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment confuses me. What facts lead you to believe that this business holds "regional importance"? And why would being privately owned increase that importance? As someone living in the region, I can attest that it's not significantly different from any other US grocery store chain. Rossami (talk)
  • Overturn, Undelete. It seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be that my standards are skewed (not being American, and therefore not familiar with a world where a chain of sixteen supermarkets could be considered run-of-the-mill (or, indeed, a "small business")), but this certainly seems to be notable to me. Regardless, I'm disturbed by the quoting of percentages and formulae and other utterly irrelevant stuff above as "proof" that the article should have been kept/deleted/stuffed up someone's nose, whatever. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[10].

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[11] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC TalkContributions 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼parler voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [17] 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]
  • Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 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]
  • Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
    • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion doesn't make the Wikipedians look very good. What is the point of spending so much energy to exclude and defend against a bio entry for some guy who obviously has a following? It's not like the page was false, inflamatory, or libelous. If there were no other bio pages for minor notables the argument against allowing this guy would carry some weight, but clearly there are lots of such pages. For example, there are a dozen Chris Taylors, none of whom is particularly notable. 66.245.31.155 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please do some research and nominate those pages for deletion as well. We are striving for consistency but we must do so by raising the standards of the encyclopedia, not starting a race for the bottom. The fact that other inappropriate articles have not yet been cleaned up can not be a justification to fail to clean up this one. Rossami (talk)
    • If you will note, from WP:DVAIN (74% support), it was suggested that in the Wikipedia community there is "reservations about overuse of this policy [WP:CSD A7]" and "while the policy is approved, please consider these matters ..." The official policy continues by stating speedy deletion should only occur when "there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability." Now, the original article was clearly vanity by Mr. Cubis, or his subjects, but nonetheless the article could be written by an unbiased individual and several people here clearly would. Thus, the argument should strictly be if the subject of the article, Shane Cubis, qualifies as notable. In this case it is strongly suggested, by official policy, to take the article to WP:AfD and not claim WP:CSD A7. The page never should have been protected deleted inhibiting an unbiased NPOV article and thus a fair WP:AfD discussion. I think there are many people here making an argument for notability, which should be the only real issue, and most of the opposition will not even take up this issue. They claim it is strictly vanity, but that is rather irrelevant and illogical. If it was strictly a vanity issue we could fix it with a simple edit; we could write only horrible things about him and make the article rather humiliating. With that said, given the tone of the important users here, I am sure this measure will fail, but nonetheless just an observation...JustOneJake 09:24, 11 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]
      • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
  • 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]
  • Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[20][21][22] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Bduke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2006

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]


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.

  • none currently listed

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 July 31}}</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 July 31}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 31|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

11 June 2006

Sydney Ling

I feel that this one was badly handled on account of two things - I believe that there was clearly a consensus (and just a few votes shy of a supermajority) for deleting the article. Even more troubling, however, is the fact that the moderator Mailer diablo literally closed the debate and then actually retired from Wikipedia! (At least according to his user page - this all has happened today.) In any case, I'm a bit distressed both because of the outcome and the fact that the mod just got up and left the community straight after. I believe that this was mishandled, and I'd advocate an overturn and delete; here's the original AfD. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 13:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shame about Mailer leaving; it does mean we can't ask him to explain himself. This seems a borderline case; I'd suggest overturning the close and relisting. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse closure. I think you are confusing the way these deletion debates are handled. Consensus is a higher standard than a mere supermajority. It means that we pay as much or more attention to the weight of arguments as we do to the weight of numbers. Reviewing the discussion, I make a vote-count of 16 "delete" to 7 "keep" (with one probable troll discounted). Had there been strong evidence, that could have been sufficient to interpret as the necessary "rough consensus" for deletion. In this case, however, the arguments focused on whether the person is notable enough to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies and neither side of this debate presented strong evidence either way. Furthermore, many of the participants explicitly qualified their opinions as "weak" (5 of the "keeps" were phrased as "weak keep" and 2 of the "deletes" were "weak delete"). Closing this discussion as "no consensus" seems to me to be well within the reasonable discretion of a closing admin.
    Note: a "no consensus" decision defaults to keep for now but does not prevent anyone from gathering stronger evidence and renominating it for deletion after a reasonable delay. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly, does one gain stronger evidence of non-notability? You cannot prove a negative, right? I understand that it is not merely a matter of votes, but I offered up what I could, and no one else had much to say. This may be because there wasn't much left to say - those for keeping didn't speak up to justify their votes, while those who voted to delete explained their specific rationale (re notability). Were they expected to expound on it for a full paragraph each? Clearly they felt the matter was a simple one and didn't feel the need to orate on it. While I respect that this isn't necessary what is sought after in an AfD, please let me know what else could have been done, if something wasn't handled well. Girolamo Savonarola 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian language

This page has been unilaterally deleted by moderator Alex Bakharev, based on a VfD of more than a year ago. I should point out, however, that a lot of things can change in a year's time, and I have such a feeling that this is the case here. Besides, the contents of the recreated article was completely different from the previous (deleted) version. I should also point out that there is a pending request for a wikipedia in the language, and therefore I think this article is not only of value, but even necessary. I propose undeleting it immediately and issuing a normal AfD procedure instead. — --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 09:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain - The current contents are indeed vastly different than the old, and it does seem perhaps a bit odd to delete as a recreate of a validly deleted article. That being said, the new content was incredibly poor, with bad spelling, links to livejournal, and many of the other markers of a poor article. I also wonder whether it's appropriate to call this a language -- by the article it sounds more like a description of a dialect (perhaps like calling a Boston accent a Boston language?). In sum, I don't know if there's any content worth keeping, and the title's probably misleading too. I'm open to lines of reasoning by other people on this one. --Improv 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Utter nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as the "Siberian language". --Timothy Usher 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - The language was developed from the time of last deletion, now it is very complicated, many texts translated and written, many people learning it, a big site launched, so it is not "non-notable" conlang now --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I absolutely agree with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. By the way, the site about siberian language and test wiki on siberian --Steel archer 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. --Pjacobi 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, looking at the article, the VfD was as valid today as it was last year. --fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable constructed language. There are no independent, neutral sources to confirm the existance of a specific "Siberian language" as described in the article. There are several languages spoken in Siberia, but this article does not adress any of them. --Ezeu 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The test wiki is not an independent reliable source. Much of it is written by some people participating here. --Ezeu 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Siberian language was prohibited in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. And now, most of people which are against this language are russian imperialists indeed. And this is a reason why it is rather difficult to find sources about siberian. There are no full literature siberian language: Yaroslav Zolotaryov just constructs it basing on many siberian dialects. So, you can hardly ever find people speak on ""literature"" siberian - only on its dialects. --Steel archer 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to AfD: from my reading in linguistics I would expect it to be deleted there, but it would give non-admins the chance to debate the deletion on the merits of its content, especially as it doesn't seem to meet the recreated content CSD. --Aquilina 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - This page needs to be undeleted. The language has already been constructed. It is based on a local dialect, but its' origins are really beside the point. There is, for example, a wiki page for Talossan language, that has been constructed by a single person for a country completely invented by him, and whose "words and grammar are just made up at random". Surely Siberian has far better basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.29.135 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The speedy-deleted version was significantly different from the deleted version. On that basis, I'm afraid that we must overturn the speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. However, I am deeply skeptical that the article will prevail during the deletion discussion. The prior deletion discussion was unanimous and included the opinion of the alleged author of this recently constructed language. None of the concerns raised in the prior deletion debate have been answered either in the redeleted article nor in this discussion so far. The wiki does not meet the required standards for a reliable source and the google test (168 unique hits) returns very little that appears relevant. Every hit I scanned used the phrase "Siberian language" in the casual sense of "a language used by a community indiginous to the geographic area of Siberia", not in the sense of a unified language. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and relist per Aquilina. The version debated on VfD was a short stub, while the version deleted as G4 was fairly detailed. That said, I'd say the new version fails WP:OR pretty hard, and should be deleted or heavily shortened on that basis unless independent sources are provided. It's almost a WP:SNOW case, but I'm personally willing to give it its five days on AfD, just in case I'm proven wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some independent sources http://dpni.org/forum/post48701.html

http://e-novosti.info/forumo/viewtopic.php?t=1819 (discussion about necessary of tukr words are they allowed or not)

Kazakhstan article http://www.dialog.kz/site.php?lan=russian&id=76&pub=1032 (positive)

Ukrainian article http://lab.org.ua/article/727/ (positive)

Latvian forum http://www.evangelie.ru/forum/archive/t-14778-p-2.html (positive reaction)

Ukrainian forums http://forum.sevastopol.info/viewtopic.php?p=134921&sid=e1bfb2dad69ccbe92f653f8e69a61352 http://www.novy.tv/ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20068&sid=6dfe6e7e13df8be971f34aa81aa365c5 (positive reaction, people reciting verses in siberian)

Russian forum http://www.disenteria.ru/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=7492&s= (some people from Siberia testify that they know this words and grammar)

Moscow forum http://forum.msk.ru/wap/news.wml?id=2200 (negative reaction, but the language considered natural)

--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

This was closed on June 8 as 'no consensus'. The discussion is here. There were 5 delete votes and 5 keep votes. The decision not to delete needs review, and a closer look at four of the five users who cast "keep" votes. FunkyChicken!, UncleFloyd, ConeyCyclone, and Nigel Wick appear to possibly be the same person using many different accounts. See the history of those usernames on past AfDs, especially the recent WWAC-TV that was deleted as a hoax. The article should either be relisted for further consensus, or deleted. 70.108.82.120 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. 70.108.82.120 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
    • Nigel_Wick (talk · contribs) began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
    • ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs), UncleFloyd (talk · contribs) and FunkyChicken! (talk · contribs) show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
    • Nertz (talk · contribs) was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
    • Punt! (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was also created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
  • I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. Note that a request for checkuser has already been declined; I personally don't think one is necessary. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that overturn and relist is better. -Splash - tk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Splash's research showing that sockpuppetry may have affected the closing admin's decision. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, apparent sockfest. Just zis Guy you know? 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major_programming_languages

I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. LotLE×talk 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Möller

Was inappropriately speedied as recreation, which it wasn't. The originally AfD'd article (Erik Moeller) didn't mention that he was a published author, and the AfD was based on the idea that he's non-notable because the article just mentioned his temporary Wikimedia post. Thus the second article should go through AfD again. Margana 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

Despite establishing the relevance of theSMSzone.com and its creator as a pioneer of SMS spoofing, the article was deleted without, in my opinion, due consideration of the arguments presented. Phanatical 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's third edit to Wikipedia
    • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:
    1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [23] - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique. [24]
    2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
    3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
    4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone [25] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [26]
    5. MSN [27] and Yahoo [28] print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
    6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Wikipedia articles may not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.
    In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: [29]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Thanks, Kimchi. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OURS

This page was speedy-deleted out of process. It was nominated at MfD, then deleted by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with edit sum CSD G4. (This is the criterion that refers to recreated material but there is no previously-deleted version.) Sceptre then closed the MfD with the notation The result of the debate was speedy delete, G5. Rgulerdem had created the idea and theres about half-a-dozen threads on the mailing list by Rg about WP:OURS, Raphael is just acting through proxy. G5 is the criterion that refers to pages created by banned users.

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

1) The nomination was made at MfD and therefore the page in question was not eligible for speedy. No matter what, we do not wish that admins ignore or bypass community consensus. The nomination was not allowed to stand for even a single day before this admin took pre-emptive action. At this point 2 users have asked the page be kept, 2 that it be deleted, and 1 has made a comment that appears to question the wisdom of deletion.

2) Neither speedy criterion applies to this page. It does not prima facie appear to be a re-creation; therefore it fails G4. It was not created by a banned user operating under a sock; it was created by another editor, one in good standing. It is irrelevant whether the content was inspired by or even written originally by the banned user; the page was not so written. We are not in a position to ban all the words that have been written by people we don't like. The actual page creator, Raphael1 (talk · contribs), stated that he did not simply copy the banned user's words from the mailing list; but even if so, that would fail to invoke G5.

3) I object strongly to admin control of the policy-making process. Adminship is not a party favor or membership in the executive club; admins are to implement policy, not to control it. Policy is the right and responsibility of every editor. Once a proposal has been made, it ought never be subject to deletion by the whim of a single admin. The page in question may be wise or unwise but we all have a right to debate it.

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Wikipedia servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
  • Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Editor was openly working to post content for a banned user. Shell babelfish 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I don't see any reason to continue the disruption this page was causing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

The original request for deletion review has been refactored due to length, for clarity, and to remove gaudy formatting. It can be viewed in its entirety here. Kimchi.sg 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
  7. the souvener progam to the movie
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

And in the end, Angr listed the film synopsis for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). I chose to wait until the last day to cast my actual vote (though I did inset a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 27%, Merge - 4 votes 27%

Only 4 out 15 people voted to DELETE the article. An equal number wanted the article merged (i.e. unsplit) with the original main article. But the majority voted TO KEEP THE ARTICLE! Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was delete?

I contest this action – it can not be allowed to stand. These people have spit into the faces of the various members of the Wikipedia community and defied the final decision. If everyone had come on and said Delete, I would have no problem with this. But the majority voted to Keep the article. The action of deleting the article is therefore a morally and ethically wrong action that must not be allowed to stand. The majority at the time said that the article should not have been deleted. On that basis, I ask for the action to be reversed. -- User:Jason Palpatine speak your mind 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over a 2 month period, I showed more than enough facts to semonstrate that the charges leveled for AfD were untrue. Despite this the charges were upheld with the truth being totally ignored -- as just about everyone here is doing. I have laid out the truth in detail here. The facts are overwhelming -- but you and the other completly ognore it! -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Wikipedia for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.
    I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:
    • Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
    • If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
    • Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.
    If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have come to the conclusion that this would probably better fit on Wikibooks. --Improv 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has been said before elsewhere. In reply to the points/questions raised above:

Question #1: Are the books User:Jason Palpatine cites physically in his possession?

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat -- is physically in my possession.
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker -- Library copy (since returned)
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction) -- is physically in my possession.
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke) -- Library copy (since returned)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony -- is physically in my possession.
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film) -- is physically in my possession.
  7. the souvenir program to the movie -- is physically in my possession.
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child! -- is (as the comment indicates) physically in my possession.
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010 -- both are physically in my possession and read more than once.

In response to this question, I have ordered Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker and Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter today through www.amazon.com. Delivery estimate: June 19, 2006 - June 21, 2006

Question #2: If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?

  • Utilizing copyrighted materials is not allowed here. I am required to use my own words regardless of source material. As I understand things here, except for a few quotations (which are in the article) direct copyright material inclusion is not allowed. I must use my own words. It is these two policies that are being used in conflict to support the outlandish claim that the article is original research.
  • I have noted before that I do not understand how to do citations in an article. I've been to the instructions page and it is beyond my understanding.
  • How much of references do I need to cite? A sentence-by-sentence referencing is just too much IMHO. Also, when claims were made of WP:OR, no justification other than the accusation itself was offered. There is nothing to prevent anyone here from looking up and checking the references listed.. I am willing to commit some time to it. However, I am not an administrator and have other considerations such as my job to consider.

Question #3: If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In May, the following tags were applied to the main article:
{{cleanupdate}}
{{split}}

According to User:Scm83x: ”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”
I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with
Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)
in the main article.
If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article [as of 18:50, 18 April 2006] In other words, that original article material was produced by other editors here.
The following editors all contributed to the article in the month before I took a serious interest:
User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS
This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was
"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all."
The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

Question #4: What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:
13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)
11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)
Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

Question #5: Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

I was unaware of the fact that the DVD would be considered a valid listing. Your proposal is interesting. MORE than interesting. If such an undertaking would be allowed I would gladly do it!

Question #6: The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.

I do not know or understand how to create inline references. The istructions are beyond my comprehension.

Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub-article] inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to (Pasted from the original article Talk page):

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:
"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."
In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal WebPages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. -- Scm83x hook 'em 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but Wikipedia copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it.

My sources are list above.

When he made his decision, fuddlemark wrote:

"The result of the debate was delete. The arguments for deleting the article -- one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, unencyclopaedic tone -- are well made, and are not refuted in this discussion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

?

Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was DELETE?

OK. Lets go over it again:

The subjects were debated at length on Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) – with the deletion of the article, all of this has been lost.

Accusation -- Original Research.

  • In discussions(qv) over the past month I presented my side of the matter and my sources (listed above). The only way to demonstrate that the article is not original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. When the accusation was presented, I listed my sources – all reliable, published sources. The claim that this article contains any original research has been shown to be an outright lie.

Accusation -- one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source).

  • First, I have listed above 57 users who contributed to the article in the month prior to my involvement and the act of splitting of it from the main article about the film. This information was/is available in the edit history of the primary article 2001: A Space Odyssey (film).
  • Second, neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. No proof has been presented that the article at the time of the motion did not conform to this policy. The synopsis article was a recounting of the events in the film. What is being advocated by the detractors here was the complete absence and elimination of viewpoints – which is impossible in any written work. Writing style and presentation are factors in every presentation (because they are created by people); even when it is completely non-bias. Whether done by a single individual or the combined whole of 57 or more people (as in this case) the result will not be the elimination of viewpoints.
  • Third, there are no value opinions expressed in the article – only facts and quotations of comments by the creators and a select trio of paragraphs from the book that correlate clearly with the events being reported.

Accusation -- Unencyclopedic tone.

  • What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? There is nothing in the Wikipedia about it. The article is a recitation of a series of events. What about that could be considered “unencyclopedic?” This accusation is nonsense.
When my edits to the article came under ATTACK, I defended my position. I presented clear, concise arguments – whereupon I was accused of original research. I responded to this false accusation by citing my sources of information -- which were labeled "irrelevant"! That is called hypocrisy.

What more substantiation of this article do I need? I have asked this question time and again without any clear answer other than the repetition of the outlandish claims of “one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, and unencyclopaedic tone.”

If the facts I have listed here (and in discussions held on other talk pages for the past 2 months) do NOT refute the charges made in the motion to AfD the article, I would appreciate someone explaining to me how that is possible.

Finally, the vote tally. . Administrator fuddlemark commented in a message to me: “I can't imagine why you think the vote tally has any relevance to the way I or anyone else closes AfD discussions.” How can it not? A majority of people was of the opinion that deletion of the article was wrong. Arguments are unnecessary in light of majority opinion. When a majority says one thing, and the powers that be go against it – that is the big stick approach (i.e. Might makes right). Such an approach to the maintenance of a work as the Wikipedia is wrong. Even if the letter of the rules allows it, I consider it to be unethical under its spirit.

This last item is the primary (but not) only reason for my request here. The action is wrong. Also, for two months now I have time and again refuted the charges that were the basis of the motion for AfD. Isn’t that enough?

Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) speak your mind[reply]
  • Comment: No. That's not how these discussions are done. All deletion discussions (and deletion review discussions) are organized chronologically to the maximum extent possible. This makes it easier to return to the discussion to see if new evidence has been presented which might cause us to change our opinions.
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote and no delete arguments were refuted, as the closing admin said. --Rory096 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). This level of detail is clearly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. The closing admin was within reasonable discretion when closing the discussion and clearly articulated why the straight vote-count was overruled. Note: I have no objection to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of a transwiki to Wikibooks. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"no delete arguments were refuted"!!! Are you saying that everything I have laid out here does not refute any of the delete arguments? None at all? That makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. -- Jason Palpatine 06:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said: If the facts I have listed here (and in discussions held on other talk pages for the past 2 months) do NOT refute the charges made in the motion to AfD the article, I would appreciate someone explaining to me how that is possible.

Is there noone who will give this request of mine a clear point for point response. -- Jason Palpatine 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Underground

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was initially called for deletion by User:BenBurch who has a history of initiating edit wars & deletions on conservative pages such as Free Republic & White Rose Society. On January 17,2006 this proposed deletion was closed by User:Johnleemk, and the result of the debate was no consensus; keep. A second deletion debate was initiated on April 14, 2006 by User:Isotope23 and on April 20, 2006it was closed by admin User:(aeropagitica), resulting in a deletion. The Conservative Underground article had been vandalized countless times before it's deletion by the same people who voted for it's deletion. It is pretty obvious that these deletions are political motivated. Articles such as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Protest Warrior, Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers, Blogging Tories, etc... are allowed to remain.--James Bond 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. ad hominem fallacy, even supposing it were true ("BenBurch has a history..."; irrelevancy ("The...article had been vandalized countless times"); and begging the question ("It is pretty obvious..."): lots of rhetorical fallacies, there. About the only undisputedly true bit is "A second deletion debate ...result[ed] in a deletion", so let's leave it at that, absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing in the process or change in the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

08 June 2006

Joseph D. Campbell

This article was nominated for deletion, and was closed by User:9cds (not an admin, although going through RfA at the moment) as 'no consensus'. I think that was a poor call. The five people expressing the view that the article should be deleted made far better arguments - mainly about that annoying little fact that articles should be, you know, verifiable, and even if he was verifiable, he's not notable - than the three who thought it should be kept (including one weak keep, and one that said 'the sources will come organically', which is ridiculous). See the AfD for more details. I would have deleted this, and I recommend overturn the closure, and delete. Proto||type 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds(talk) 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as per MartinRe or at least relist. As previously mentioned, one reference is a letter to the editor. A person can write almost anything to the editor and get it published (perhaps not for very large newspapers, though). The other reference is a journal with a less than rigorous publication policy - it can't be incoherent. They also charge authors for publishing their work. Finally, the references were probably obtained from the subject's website, so they are really references for the website rather than for the article (there should be a policy about not using such second hand references if there isn't already). -- Kjkolb 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. No consensus is correct, but more debate is clearly needed since the problems with the article are significant and need to be addressed. Just zis Guy you know? 16:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality

(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion and salt the earth. Too many times in too many places, editor can always bring this to DRV again if the notability merits recreation. Shell babelfish 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinen's

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinen's
  • Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [30]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. . Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, [31], Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The regional importance of this organization--given that it is privately owned--signals its importance for inclusion and notability. Irongargoyle 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment confuses me. What facts lead you to believe that this business holds "regional importance"? And why would being privately owned increase that importance? As someone living in the region, I can attest that it's not significantly different from any other US grocery store chain. Rossami (talk)
  • Overturn, Undelete. It seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be that my standards are skewed (not being American, and therefore not familiar with a world where a chain of sixteen supermarkets could be considered run-of-the-mill (or, indeed, a "small business")), but this certainly seems to be notable to me. Regardless, I'm disturbed by the quoting of percentages and formulae and other utterly irrelevant stuff above as "proof" that the article should have been kept/deleted/stuffed up someone's nose, whatever. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[32].

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[33] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [34], [35], [36], [37] and [38]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC TalkContributions 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼parler voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [39] 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]
  • Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 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]
  • Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
    • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion doesn't make the Wikipedians look very good. What is the point of spending so much energy to exclude and defend against a bio entry for some guy who obviously has a following? It's not like the page was false, inflamatory, or libelous. If there were no other bio pages for minor notables the argument against allowing this guy would carry some weight, but clearly there are lots of such pages. For example, there are a dozen Chris Taylors, none of whom is particularly notable. 66.245.31.155 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please do some research and nominate those pages for deletion as well. We are striving for consistency but we must do so by raising the standards of the encyclopedia, not starting a race for the bottom. The fact that other inappropriate articles have not yet been cleaned up can not be a justification to fail to clean up this one. Rossami (talk)
    • If you will note, from WP:DVAIN (74% support), it was suggested that in the Wikipedia community there is "reservations about overuse of this policy [WP:CSD A7]" and "while the policy is approved, please consider these matters ..." The official policy continues by stating speedy deletion should only occur when "there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability." Now, the original article was clearly vanity by Mr. Cubis, or his subjects, but nonetheless the article could be written by an unbiased individual and several people here clearly would. Thus, the argument should strictly be if the subject of the article, Shane Cubis, qualifies as notable. In this case it is strongly suggested, by official policy, to take the article to WP:AfD and not claim WP:CSD A7. The page never should have been protected deleted inhibiting an unbiased NPOV article and thus a fair WP:AfD discussion. I think there are many people here making an argument for notability, which should be the only real issue, and most of the opposition will not even take up this issue. They claim it is strictly vanity, but that is rather irrelevant and illogical. If it was strictly a vanity issue we could fix it with a simple edit; we could write only horrible things about him and make the article rather humiliating. With that said, given the tone of the important users here, I am sure this measure will fail, but nonetheless just an observation...JustOneJake 09:24, 11 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]
      • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
  • 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]
  • Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[42][43][44] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Bduke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2006

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]


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.

  • none currently listed

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.

  • none currently listed

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 July 31}}</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 July 31}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 31|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

11 June 2006

Sydney Ling

I feel that this one was badly handled on account of two things - I believe that there was clearly a consensus (and just a few votes shy of a supermajority) for deleting the article. Even more troubling, however, is the fact that the moderator Mailer diablo literally closed the debate and then actually retired from Wikipedia! (At least according to his user page - this all has happened today.) In any case, I'm a bit distressed both because of the outcome and the fact that the mod just got up and left the community straight after. I believe that this was mishandled, and I'd advocate an overturn and delete; here's the original AfD. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 13:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shame about Mailer leaving; it does mean we can't ask him to explain himself. This seems a borderline case; I'd suggest overturning the close and relisting. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse closure. I think you are confusing the way these deletion debates are handled. Consensus is a higher standard than a mere supermajority. It means that we pay as much or more attention to the weight of arguments as we do to the weight of numbers. Reviewing the discussion, I make a vote-count of 16 "delete" to 7 "keep" (with one probable troll discounted). Had there been strong evidence, that could have been sufficient to interpret as the necessary "rough consensus" for deletion. In this case, however, the arguments focused on whether the person is notable enough to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies and neither side of this debate presented strong evidence either way. Furthermore, many of the participants explicitly qualified their opinions as "weak" (5 of the "keeps" were phrased as "weak keep" and 2 of the "deletes" were "weak delete"). Closing this discussion as "no consensus" seems to me to be well within the reasonable discretion of a closing admin.
    Note: a "no consensus" decision defaults to keep for now but does not prevent anyone from gathering stronger evidence and renominating it for deletion after a reasonable delay. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly, does one gain stronger evidence of non-notability? You cannot prove a negative, right? I understand that it is not merely a matter of votes, but I offered up what I could, and no one else had much to say. This may be because there wasn't much left to say - those for keeping didn't speak up to justify their votes, while those who voted to delete explained their specific rationale (re notability). Were they expected to expound on it for a full paragraph each? Clearly they felt the matter was a simple one and didn't feel the need to orate on it. While I respect that this isn't necessary what is sought after in an AfD, please let me know what else could have been done, if something wasn't handled well. Girolamo Savonarola 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian language

This page has been unilaterally deleted by moderator Alex Bakharev, based on a VfD of more than a year ago. I should point out, however, that a lot of things can change in a year's time, and I have such a feeling that this is the case here. Besides, the contents of the recreated article was completely different from the previous (deleted) version. I should also point out that there is a pending request for a wikipedia in the language, and therefore I think this article is not only of value, but even necessary. I propose undeleting it immediately and issuing a normal AfD procedure instead. — --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 09:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain - The current contents are indeed vastly different than the old, and it does seem perhaps a bit odd to delete as a recreate of a validly deleted article. That being said, the new content was incredibly poor, with bad spelling, links to livejournal, and many of the other markers of a poor article. I also wonder whether it's appropriate to call this a language -- by the article it sounds more like a description of a dialect (perhaps like calling a Boston accent a Boston language?). In sum, I don't know if there's any content worth keeping, and the title's probably misleading too. I'm open to lines of reasoning by other people on this one. --Improv 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Utter nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as the "Siberian language". --Timothy Usher 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - The language was developed from the time of last deletion, now it is very complicated, many texts translated and written, many people learning it, a big site launched, so it is not "non-notable" conlang now --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I absolutely agree with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. By the way, the site about siberian language and test wiki on siberian --Steel archer 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. --Pjacobi 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, looking at the article, the VfD was as valid today as it was last year. --fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable constructed language. There are no independent, neutral sources to confirm the existance of a specific "Siberian language" as described in the article. There are several languages spoken in Siberia, but this article does not adress any of them. --Ezeu 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The test wiki is not an independent reliable source. Much of it is written by some people participating here. --Ezeu 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Siberian language was prohibited in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. And now, most of people which are against this language are russian imperialists indeed. And this is a reason why it is rather difficult to find sources about siberian. There are no full literature siberian language: Yaroslav Zolotaryov just constructs it basing on many siberian dialects. So, you can hardly ever find people speak on ""literature"" siberian - only on its dialects. --Steel archer 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to AfD: from my reading in linguistics I would expect it to be deleted there, but it would give non-admins the chance to debate the deletion on the merits of its content, especially as it doesn't seem to meet the recreated content CSD. --Aquilina 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - This page needs to be undeleted. The language has already been constructed. It is based on a local dialect, but its' origins are really beside the point. There is, for example, a wiki page for Talossan language, that has been constructed by a single person for a country completely invented by him, and whose "words and grammar are just made up at random". Surely Siberian has far better basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.29.135 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The speedy-deleted version was significantly different from the deleted version. On that basis, I'm afraid that we must overturn the speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. However, I am deeply skeptical that the article will prevail during the deletion discussion. The prior deletion discussion was unanimous and included the opinion of the alleged author of this recently constructed language. None of the concerns raised in the prior deletion debate have been answered either in the redeleted article nor in this discussion so far. The wiki does not meet the required standards for a reliable source and the google test (168 unique hits) returns very little that appears relevant. Every hit I scanned used the phrase "Siberian language" in the casual sense of "a language used by a community indiginous to the geographic area of Siberia", not in the sense of a unified language. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and relist per Aquilina. The version debated on VfD was a short stub, while the version deleted as G4 was fairly detailed. That said, I'd say the new version fails WP:OR pretty hard, and should be deleted or heavily shortened on that basis unless independent sources are provided. It's almost a WP:SNOW case, but I'm personally willing to give it its five days on AfD, just in case I'm proven wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some independent sources http://dpni.org/forum/post48701.html

http://e-novosti.info/forumo/viewtopic.php?t=1819 (discussion about necessary of tukr words are they allowed or not)

Kazakhstan article http://www.dialog.kz/site.php?lan=russian&id=76&pub=1032 (positive)

Ukrainian article http://lab.org.ua/article/727/ (positive)

Latvian forum http://www.evangelie.ru/forum/archive/t-14778-p-2.html (positive reaction)

Ukrainian forums http://forum.sevastopol.info/viewtopic.php?p=134921&sid=e1bfb2dad69ccbe92f653f8e69a61352 http://www.novy.tv/ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20068&sid=6dfe6e7e13df8be971f34aa81aa365c5 (positive reaction, people reciting verses in siberian)

Russian forum http://www.disenteria.ru/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=7492&s= (some people from Siberia testify that they know this words and grammar)

Moscow forum http://forum.msk.ru/wap/news.wml?id=2200 (negative reaction, but the language considered natural)

--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

This was closed on June 8 as 'no consensus'. The discussion is here. There were 5 delete votes and 5 keep votes. The decision not to delete needs review, and a closer look at four of the five users who cast "keep" votes. FunkyChicken!, UncleFloyd, ConeyCyclone, and Nigel Wick appear to possibly be the same person using many different accounts. See the history of those usernames on past AfDs, especially the recent WWAC-TV that was deleted as a hoax. The article should either be relisted for further consensus, or deleted. 70.108.82.120 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. 70.108.82.120 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
    • Nigel_Wick (talk · contribs) began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
    • ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs), UncleFloyd (talk · contribs) and FunkyChicken! (talk · contribs) show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
    • Nertz (talk · contribs) was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
    • Punt! (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was also created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
  • I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. Note that a request for checkuser has already been declined; I personally don't think one is necessary. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that overturn and relist is better. -Splash - tk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Splash's research showing that sockpuppetry may have affected the closing admin's decision. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, apparent sockfest. Just zis Guy you know? 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major_programming_languages

I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. LotLE×talk 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Möller

Was inappropriately speedied as recreation, which it wasn't. The originally AfD'd article (Erik Moeller) didn't mention that he was a published author, and the AfD was based on the idea that he's non-notable because the article just mentioned his temporary Wikimedia post. Thus the second article should go through AfD again. Margana 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

Despite establishing the relevance of theSMSzone.com and its creator as a pioneer of SMS spoofing, the article was deleted without, in my opinion, due consideration of the arguments presented. Phanatical 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's third edit to Wikipedia
    • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:
    1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [45] - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique. [46]
    2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
    3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
    4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone [47] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [48]
    5. MSN [49] and Yahoo [50] print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
    6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Wikipedia articles may not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.
    In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: [51]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Thanks, Kimchi. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OURS

This page was speedy-deleted out of process. It was nominated at MfD, then deleted by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with edit sum CSD G4. (This is the criterion that refers to recreated material but there is no previously-deleted version.) Sceptre then closed the MfD with the notation The result of the debate was speedy delete, G5. Rgulerdem had created the idea and theres about half-a-dozen threads on the mailing list by Rg about WP:OURS, Raphael is just acting through proxy. G5 is the criterion that refers to pages created by banned users.

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

1) The nomination was made at MfD and therefore the page in question was not eligible for speedy. No matter what, we do not wish that admins ignore or bypass community consensus. The nomination was not allowed to stand for even a single day before this admin took pre-emptive action. At this point 2 users have asked the page be kept, 2 that it be deleted, and 1 has made a comment that appears to question the wisdom of deletion.

2) Neither speedy criterion applies to this page. It does not prima facie appear to be a re-creation; therefore it fails G4. It was not created by a banned user operating under a sock; it was created by another editor, one in good standing. It is irrelevant whether the content was inspired by or even written originally by the banned user; the page was not so written. We are not in a position to ban all the words that have been written by people we don't like. The actual page creator, Raphael1 (talk · contribs), stated that he did not simply copy the banned user's words from the mailing list; but even if so, that would fail to invoke G5.

3) I object strongly to admin control of the policy-making process. Adminship is not a party favor or membership in the executive club; admins are to implement policy, not to control it. Policy is the right and responsibility of every editor. Once a proposal has been made, it ought never be subject to deletion by the whim of a single admin. The page in question may be wise or unwise but we all have a right to debate it.

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Wikipedia servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
  • Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Editor was openly working to post content for a banned user. Shell babelfish 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I don't see any reason to continue the disruption this page was causing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

The original request for deletion review has been refactored due to length, for clarity, and to remove gaudy formatting. It can be viewed in its entirety here. Kimchi.sg 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
  7. the souvener progam to the movie
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

And in the end, Angr listed the film synopsis for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). I chose to wait until the last day to cast my actual vote (though I did inset a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 27%, Merge - 4 votes 27%

Only 4 out 15 people voted to DELETE the article. An equal number wanted the article merged (i.e. unsplit) with the original main article. But the majority voted TO KEEP THE ARTICLE! Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was delete?

I contest this action – it can not be allowed to stand. These people have spit into the faces of the various members of the Wikipedia community and defied the final decision. If everyone had come on and said Delete, I would have no problem with this. But the majority voted to Keep the article. The action of deleting the article is therefore a morally and ethically wrong action that must not be allowed to stand. The majority at the time said that the article should not have been deleted. On that basis, I ask for the action to be reversed. -- User:Jason Palpatine speak your mind 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over a 2 month period, I showed more than enough facts to semonstrate that the charges leveled for AfD were untrue. Despite this the charges were upheld with the truth being totally ignored -- as just about everyone here is doing. I have laid out the truth in detail here. The facts are overwhelming -- but you and the other completly ognore it! -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Wikipedia for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.
    I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:
    • Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
    • If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
    • Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.
    If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have come to the conclusion that this would probably better fit on Wikibooks. --Improv 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has been said before elsewhere. In reply to the points/questions raised above:

Question #1: Are the books User:Jason Palpatine cites physically in his possession?

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat -- is physically in my possession.
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker -- Library copy (since returned)
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction) -- is physically in my possession.
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke) -- Library copy (since returned)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony -- is physically in my possession.
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film) -- is physically in my possession.
  7. the souvenir program to the movie -- is physically in my possession.
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child! -- is (as the comment indicates) physically in my possession.
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010 -- both are physically in my possession and read more than once.

In response to this question, I have ordered Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker and Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter today through www.amazon.com. Delivery estimate: June 19, 2006 - June 21, 2006

Question #2: If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?

  • Utilizing copyrighted materials is not allowed here. I am required to use my own words regardless of source material. As I understand things here, except for a few quotations (which are in the article) direct copyright material inclusion is not allowed. I must use my own words. It is these two policies that are being used in conflict to support the outlandish claim that the article is original research.
  • I have noted before that I do not understand how to do citations in an article. I've been to the instructions page and it is beyond my understanding.
  • How much of references do I need to cite? A sentence-by-sentence referencing is just too much IMHO. Also, when claims were made of WP:OR, no justification other than the accusation itself was offered. There is nothing to prevent anyone here from looking up and checking the references listed.. I am willing to commit some time to it. However, I am not an administrator and have other considerations such as my job to consider.

Question #3: If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In May, the following tags were applied to the main article:
{{cleanupdate}}
{{split}}

According to User:Scm83x: ”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”
I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with
Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)
in the main article.
If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article [as of 18:50, 18 April 2006] In other words, that original article material was produced by other editors here.
The following editors all contributed to the article in the month before I took a serious interest:
User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS
This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was
"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all."
The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

Question #4: What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:
13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)
11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)
Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

Question #5: Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

I was unaware of the fact that the DVD would be considered a valid listing. Your proposal is interesting. MORE than interesting. If such an undertaking would be allowed I would gladly do it!

Question #6: The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.

I do not know or understand how to create inline references. The istructions are beyond my comprehension.

Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub-article] inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to (Pasted from the original article Talk page):

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:
"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."
In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal WebPages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. -- Scm83x hook 'em 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but Wikipedia copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it.

My sources are list above.

When he made his decision, fuddlemark wrote:

"The result of the debate was delete. The arguments for deleting the article -- one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, unencyclopaedic tone -- are well made, and are not refuted in this discussion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

?

Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was DELETE?

OK. Lets go over it again:

The subjects were debated at length on Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) – with the deletion of the article, all of this has been lost.

Accusation -- Original Research.

  • In discussions(qv) over the past month I presented my side of the matter and my sources (listed above). The only way to demonstrate that the article is not original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. When the accusation was presented, I listed my sources – all reliable, published sources. The claim that this article contains any original research has been shown to be an outright lie.

Accusation -- one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source).

  • First, I have listed above 57 users who contributed to the article in the month prior to my involvement and the act of splitting of it from the main article about the film. This information was/is available in the edit history of the primary article 2001: A Space Odyssey (film).
  • Second, neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. No proof has been presented that the article at the time of the motion did not conform to this policy. The synopsis article was a recounting of the events in the film. What is being advocated by the detractors here was the complete absence and elimination of viewpoints – which is impossible in any written work. Writing style and presentation are factors in every presentation (because they are created by people); even when it is completely non-bias. Whether done by a single individual or the combined whole of 57 or more people (as in this case) the result will not be the elimination of viewpoints.
  • Third, there are no value opinions expressed in the article – only facts and quotations of comments by the creators and a select trio of paragraphs from the book that correlate clearly with the events being reported.

Accusation -- Unencyclopedic tone.

  • What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? There is nothing in the Wikipedia about it. The article is a recitation of a series of events. What about that could be considered “unencyclopedic?” This accusation is nonsense.
When my edits to the article came under ATTACK, I defended my position. I presented clear, concise arguments – whereupon I was accused of original research. I responded to this false accusation by citing my sources of information -- which were labeled "irrelevant"! That is called hypocrisy.

What more substantiation of this article do I need? I have asked this question time and again without any clear answer other than the repetition of the outlandish claims of “one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, and unencyclopaedic tone.”

If the facts I have listed here (and in discussions held on other talk pages for the past 2 months) do NOT refute the charges made in the motion to AfD the article, I would appreciate someone explaining to me how that is possible.

Finally, the vote tally. . Administrator fuddlemark commented in a message to me: “I can't imagine why you think the vote tally has any relevance to the way I or anyone else closes AfD discussions.” How can it not? A majority of people was of the opinion that deletion of the article was wrong. Arguments are unnecessary in light of majority opinion. When a majority says one thing, and the powers that be go against it – that is the big stick approach (i.e. Might makes right). Such an approach to the maintenance of a work as the Wikipedia is wrong. Even if the letter of the rules allows it, I consider it to be unethical under its spirit.

This last item is the primary (but not) only reason for my request here. The action is wrong. Also, for two months now I have time and again refuted the charges that were the basis of the motion for AfD. Isn’t that enough?

Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) speak your mind[reply]
  • Comment: No. That's not how these discussions are done. All deletion discussions (and deletion review discussions) are organized chronologically to the maximum extent possible. This makes it easier to return to the discussion to see if new evidence has been presented which might cause us to change our opinions.
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote and no delete arguments were refuted, as the closing admin said. --Rory096 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). This level of detail is clearly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. The closing admin was within reasonable discretion when closing the discussion and clearly articulated why the straight vote-count was overruled. Note: I have no objection to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of a transwiki to Wikibooks. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"no delete arguments were refuted"!!! Are you saying that everything I have laid out here does not refute any of the delete arguments? None at all? That makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. -- Jason Palpatine 06:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said: If the facts I have listed here (and in discussions held on other talk pages for the past 2 months) do NOT refute the charges made in the motion to AfD the article, I would appreciate someone explaining to me how that is possible.

Is there noone who will give this request of mine a clear point for point response. -- Jason Palpatine 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Underground

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was initially called for deletion by User:BenBurch who has a history of initiating edit wars & deletions on conservative pages such as Free Republic & White Rose Society. On January 17,2006 this proposed deletion was closed by User:Johnleemk, and the result of the debate was no consensus; keep. A second deletion debate was initiated on April 14, 2006 by User:Isotope23 and on April 20, 2006it was closed by admin User:(aeropagitica), resulting in a deletion. The Conservative Underground article had been vandalized countless times before it's deletion by the same people who voted for it's deletion. It is pretty obvious that these deletions are political motivated. Articles such as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Protest Warrior, Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers, Blogging Tories, etc... are allowed to remain.--James Bond 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. ad hominem fallacy, even supposing it were true ("BenBurch has a history..."; irrelevancy ("The...article had been vandalized countless times"); and begging the question ("It is pretty obvious..."): lots of rhetorical fallacies, there. About the only undisputedly true bit is "A second deletion debate ...result[ed] in a deletion", so let's leave it at that, absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing in the process or change in the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

08 June 2006

Joseph D. Campbell

This article was nominated for deletion, and was closed by User:9cds (not an admin, although going through RfA at the moment) as 'no consensus'. I think that was a poor call. The five people expressing the view that the article should be deleted made far better arguments - mainly about that annoying little fact that articles should be, you know, verifiable, and even if he was verifiable, he's not notable - than the three who thought it should be kept (including one weak keep, and one that said 'the sources will come organically', which is ridiculous). See the AfD for more details. I would have deleted this, and I recommend overturn the closure, and delete. Proto||type 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds(talk) 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as per MartinRe or at least relist. As previously mentioned, one reference is a letter to the editor. A person can write almost anything to the editor and get it published (perhaps not for very large newspapers, though). The other reference is a journal with a less than rigorous publication policy - it can't be incoherent. They also charge authors for publishing their work. Finally, the references were probably obtained from the subject's website, so they are really references for the website rather than for the article (there should be a policy about not using such second hand references if there isn't already). -- Kjkolb 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. No consensus is correct, but more debate is clearly needed since the problems with the article are significant and need to be addressed. Just zis Guy you know? 16:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality

(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion and salt the earth. Too many times in too many places, editor can always bring this to DRV again if the notability merits recreation. Shell babelfish 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinen's

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinen's
  • Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [52]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. . Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, [53], Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The regional importance of this organization--given that it is privately owned--signals its importance for inclusion and notability. Irongargoyle 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment confuses me. What facts lead you to believe that this business holds "regional importance"? And why would being privately owned increase that importance? As someone living in the region, I can attest that it's not significantly different from any other US grocery store chain. Rossami (talk)
  • Overturn, Undelete. It seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be that my standards are skewed (not being American, and therefore not familiar with a world where a chain of sixteen supermarkets could be considered run-of-the-mill (or, indeed, a "small business")), but this certainly seems to be notable to me. Regardless, I'm disturbed by the quoting of percentages and formulae and other utterly irrelevant stuff above as "proof" that the article should have been kept/deleted/stuffed up someone's nose, whatever. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[54].

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[55] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [56], [57], [58], [59] and [60]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC TalkContributions 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼parler voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [61] 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]
  • Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 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]
  • Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
    • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion doesn't make the Wikipedians look very good. What is the point of spending so much energy to exclude and defend against a bio entry for some guy who obviously has a following? It's not like the page was false, inflamatory, or libelous. If there were no other bio pages for minor notables the argument against allowing this guy would carry some weight, but clearly there are lots of such pages. For example, there are a dozen Chris Taylors, none of whom is particularly notable. 66.245.31.155 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please do some research and nominate those pages for deletion as well. We are striving for consistency but we must do so by raising the standards of the encyclopedia, not starting a race for the bottom. The fact that other inappropriate articles have not yet been cleaned up can not be a justification to fail to clean up this one. Rossami (talk)
    • If you will note, from WP:DVAIN (74% support), it was suggested that in the Wikipedia community there is "reservations about overuse of this policy [WP:CSD A7]" and "while the policy is approved, please consider these matters ..." The official policy continues by stating speedy deletion should only occur when "there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability." Now, the original article was clearly vanity by Mr. Cubis, or his subjects, but nonetheless the article could be written by an unbiased individual and several people here clearly would. Thus, the argument should strictly be if the subject of the article, Shane Cubis, qualifies as notable. In this case it is strongly suggested, by official policy, to take the article to WP:AfD and not claim WP:CSD A7. The page never should have been protected deleted inhibiting an unbiased NPOV article and thus a fair WP:AfD discussion. I think there are many people here making an argument for notability, which should be the only real issue, and most of the opposition will not even take up this issue. They claim it is strictly vanity, but that is rather irrelevant and illogical. If it was strictly a vanity issue we could fix it with a simple edit; we could write only horrible things about him and make the article rather humiliating. With that said, given the tone of the important users here, I am sure this measure will fail, but nonetheless just an observation...JustOneJake 09:24, 11 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]
      • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
  • 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]
  • Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[64][65][66] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Bduke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2006

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]


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 July 31}}</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 July 31}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 July 31|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

11 June 2006

Sydney Ling

I feel that this one was badly handled on account of two things - I believe that there was clearly a consensus (and just a few votes shy of a supermajority) for deleting the article. Even more troubling, however, is the fact that the moderator Mailer diablo literally closed the debate and then actually retired from Wikipedia! (At least according to his user page - this all has happened today.) In any case, I'm a bit distressed both because of the outcome and the fact that the mod just got up and left the community straight after. I believe that this was mishandled, and I'd advocate an overturn and delete; here's the original AfD. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 13:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shame about Mailer leaving; it does mean we can't ask him to explain himself. This seems a borderline case; I'd suggest overturning the close and relisting. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse closure. I think you are confusing the way these deletion debates are handled. Consensus is a higher standard than a mere supermajority. It means that we pay as much or more attention to the weight of arguments as we do to the weight of numbers. Reviewing the discussion, I make a vote-count of 16 "delete" to 7 "keep" (with one probable troll discounted). Had there been strong evidence, that could have been sufficient to interpret as the necessary "rough consensus" for deletion. In this case, however, the arguments focused on whether the person is notable enough to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies and neither side of this debate presented strong evidence either way. Furthermore, many of the participants explicitly qualified their opinions as "weak" (5 of the "keeps" were phrased as "weak keep" and 2 of the "deletes" were "weak delete"). Closing this discussion as "no consensus" seems to me to be well within the reasonable discretion of a closing admin.
    Note: a "no consensus" decision defaults to keep for now but does not prevent anyone from gathering stronger evidence and renominating it for deletion after a reasonable delay. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly, does one gain stronger evidence of non-notability? You cannot prove a negative, right? I understand that it is not merely a matter of votes, but I offered up what I could, and no one else had much to say. This may be because there wasn't much left to say - those for keeping didn't speak up to justify their votes, while those who voted to delete explained their specific rationale (re notability). Were they expected to expound on it for a full paragraph each? Clearly they felt the matter was a simple one and didn't feel the need to orate on it. While I respect that this isn't necessary what is sought after in an AfD, please let me know what else could have been done, if something wasn't handled well. Girolamo Savonarola 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian language

This page has been unilaterally deleted by moderator Alex Bakharev, based on a VfD of more than a year ago. I should point out, however, that a lot of things can change in a year's time, and I have such a feeling that this is the case here. Besides, the contents of the recreated article was completely different from the previous (deleted) version. I should also point out that there is a pending request for a wikipedia in the language, and therefore I think this article is not only of value, but even necessary. I propose undeleting it immediately and issuing a normal AfD procedure instead. — --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 09:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain - The current contents are indeed vastly different than the old, and it does seem perhaps a bit odd to delete as a recreate of a validly deleted article. That being said, the new content was incredibly poor, with bad spelling, links to livejournal, and many of the other markers of a poor article. I also wonder whether it's appropriate to call this a language -- by the article it sounds more like a description of a dialect (perhaps like calling a Boston accent a Boston language?). In sum, I don't know if there's any content worth keeping, and the title's probably misleading too. I'm open to lines of reasoning by other people on this one. --Improv 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Utter nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as the "Siberian language". --Timothy Usher 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - The language was developed from the time of last deletion, now it is very complicated, many texts translated and written, many people learning it, a big site launched, so it is not "non-notable" conlang now --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I absolutely agree with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. By the way, the site about siberian language and test wiki on siberian --Steel archer 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. --Pjacobi 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, looking at the article, the VfD was as valid today as it was last year. --fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable constructed language. There are no independent, neutral sources to confirm the existance of a specific "Siberian language" as described in the article. There are several languages spoken in Siberia, but this article does not adress any of them. --Ezeu 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The test wiki is not an independent reliable source. Much of it is written by some people participating here. --Ezeu 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Siberian language was prohibited in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. And now, most of people which are against this language are russian imperialists indeed. And this is a reason why it is rather difficult to find sources about siberian. There are no full literature siberian language: Yaroslav Zolotaryov just constructs it basing on many siberian dialects. So, you can hardly ever find people speak on ""literature"" siberian - only on its dialects. --Steel archer 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to AfD: from my reading in linguistics I would expect it to be deleted there, but it would give non-admins the chance to debate the deletion on the merits of its content, especially as it doesn't seem to meet the recreated content CSD. --Aquilina 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - This page needs to be undeleted. The language has already been constructed. It is based on a local dialect, but its' origins are really beside the point. There is, for example, a wiki page for Talossan language, that has been constructed by a single person for a country completely invented by him, and whose "words and grammar are just made up at random". Surely Siberian has far better basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.29.135 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The speedy-deleted version was significantly different from the deleted version. On that basis, I'm afraid that we must overturn the speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. However, I am deeply skeptical that the article will prevail during the deletion discussion. The prior deletion discussion was unanimous and included the opinion of the alleged author of this recently constructed language. None of the concerns raised in the prior deletion debate have been answered either in the redeleted article nor in this discussion so far. The wiki does not meet the required standards for a reliable source and the google test (168 unique hits) returns very little that appears relevant. Every hit I scanned used the phrase "Siberian language" in the casual sense of "a language used by a community indiginous to the geographic area of Siberia", not in the sense of a unified language. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and relist per Aquilina. The version debated on VfD was a short stub, while the version deleted as G4 was fairly detailed. That said, I'd say the new version fails WP:OR pretty hard, and should be deleted or heavily shortened on that basis unless independent sources are provided. It's almost a WP:SNOW case, but I'm personally willing to give it its five days on AfD, just in case I'm proven wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some independent sources http://dpni.org/forum/post48701.html

http://e-novosti.info/forumo/viewtopic.php?t=1819 (discussion about necessary of tukr words are they allowed or not)

Kazakhstan article http://www.dialog.kz/site.php?lan=russian&id=76&pub=1032 (positive)

Ukrainian article http://lab.org.ua/article/727/ (positive)

Latvian forum http://www.evangelie.ru/forum/archive/t-14778-p-2.html (positive reaction)

Ukrainian forums http://forum.sevastopol.info/viewtopic.php?p=134921&sid=e1bfb2dad69ccbe92f653f8e69a61352 http://www.novy.tv/ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20068&sid=6dfe6e7e13df8be971f34aa81aa365c5 (positive reaction, people reciting verses in siberian)

Russian forum http://www.disenteria.ru/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=7492&s= (some people from Siberia testify that they know this words and grammar)

Moscow forum http://forum.msk.ru/wap/news.wml?id=2200 (negative reaction, but the language considered natural)

--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

This was closed on June 8 as 'no consensus'. The discussion is here. There were 5 delete votes and 5 keep votes. The decision not to delete needs review, and a closer look at four of the five users who cast "keep" votes. FunkyChicken!, UncleFloyd, ConeyCyclone, and Nigel Wick appear to possibly be the same person using many different accounts. See the history of those usernames on past AfDs, especially the recent WWAC-TV that was deleted as a hoax. The article should either be relisted for further consensus, or deleted. 70.108.82.120 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth keep vote from Nertz may be the same person too since it is a recently created account, shows the same fondness for exclamation points! as the other four, and expressed knowledge of the recent Jersey Shore Communciations/WWAC-TV hoax. 70.108.82.120 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. I smell socks as follows:
    • Nigel_Wick (talk · contribs) began editing a matter of hours prior to his comment in the AfD, which was his first such comment. Such participation would typically be given a light weight anyway, the following circumstantials notwithstanding;
    • ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs), UncleFloyd (talk · contribs) and FunkyChicken! (talk · contribs) show almost exactly the same gaps in editing. They all ceased editing in July (August for FunkyChicken!) of 2005, and only resumed in February 2006 — all on the 20th or 22nd. All three have a further near-simultaneous gap from that burst in February to the beginning of this month, 1/2 June, a matter of days before the AfD, when all again began editing at nearly the same time. All visited the AfD within their first few edits. I conclude that these are socks of one another, and that they should be dismissed. If people concur, I would also suggest indefinite blocks given their usage.
    • Nertz (talk · contribs) was an account created at exactly the same time as the three above resumed editing — on 2nd June, and visited the AfD in short order. Just about the same shortness of order as the other three. As with Nigel Wick, this would usually lighten his weight considerably, but I strongly suspect this to be a further sockpuppet.
    • Punt! (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. This account, coincidentally, was also created on 2nd June, the same day it wrote the article, and does indeed share a penchant for exclamation marks with several of the others. I suspect a further sockpuppet.
  • I would therefore suggest that all of these account be indefinitely blocked (they are not benign socks) and the puppet master can email an admin requesting his/her chosen one be unblocked. Note that a request for checkuser has already been declined; I personally don't think one is necessary. As to the deletion review, the article itself is borderline as is the company. It would be entirely reasonable to overturn the closure and delete. But I think, given the disruption the debate experienced, that overturn and relist is better. -Splash - tk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Splash's research showing that sockpuppetry may have affected the closing admin's decision. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, apparent sockfest. Just zis Guy you know? 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major_programming_languages

I did not see the TfD discussion until after someone acted on it to remove the template from an article I watch. Looking through the discussion, it appears that the discussion had 11 delete votes, and 6 keep votes (FWIW, I would have voted "keep" if I had noticed it). It doesn't seem like deletion on a bare majority is the right closing action (no consensus would be more fitting). As far as I can see, all the votes on both sides were cast in good faith, by established editors, and accompanied by reasonable statements of reasons. So the conduct of the discussion seems eminently reasonable... it just doesn't seem to have been closed correctly. LotLE×talk 20:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Möller

Was inappropriately speedied as recreation, which it wasn't. The originally AfD'd article (Erik Moeller) didn't mention that he was a published author, and the AfD was based on the idea that he's non-notable because the article just mentioned his temporary Wikimedia post. Thus the second article should go through AfD again. Margana 19:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

Despite establishing the relevance of theSMSzone.com and its creator as a pioneer of SMS spoofing, the article was deleted without, in my opinion, due consideration of the arguments presented. Phanatical 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's third edit to Wikipedia
    • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:
    1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [67] - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique. [68]
    2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
    3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
    4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone [69] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [70]
    5. MSN [71] and Yahoo [72] print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
    6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Wikipedia articles may not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.
    In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: [73]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Thanks, Kimchi. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OURS

This page was speedy-deleted out of process. It was nominated at MfD, then deleted by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with edit sum CSD G4. (This is the criterion that refers to recreated material but there is no previously-deleted version.) Sceptre then closed the MfD with the notation The result of the debate was speedy delete, G5. Rgulerdem had created the idea and theres about half-a-dozen threads on the mailing list by Rg about WP:OURS, Raphael is just acting through proxy. G5 is the criterion that refers to pages created by banned users.

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

1) The nomination was made at MfD and therefore the page in question was not eligible for speedy. No matter what, we do not wish that admins ignore or bypass community consensus. The nomination was not allowed to stand for even a single day before this admin took pre-emptive action. At this point 2 users have asked the page be kept, 2 that it be deleted, and 1 has made a comment that appears to question the wisdom of deletion.

2) Neither speedy criterion applies to this page. It does not prima facie appear to be a re-creation; therefore it fails G4. It was not created by a banned user operating under a sock; it was created by another editor, one in good standing. It is irrelevant whether the content was inspired by or even written originally by the banned user; the page was not so written. We are not in a position to ban all the words that have been written by people we don't like. The actual page creator, Raphael1 (talk · contribs), stated that he did not simply copy the banned user's words from the mailing list; but even if so, that would fail to invoke G5.

3) I object strongly to admin control of the policy-making process. Adminship is not a party favor or membership in the executive club; admins are to implement policy, not to control it. Policy is the right and responsibility of every editor. Once a proposal has been made, it ought never be subject to deletion by the whim of a single admin. The page in question may be wise or unwise but we all have a right to debate it.

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Wikipedia servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
  • Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Editor was openly working to post content for a banned user. Shell babelfish 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I don't see any reason to continue the disruption this page was causing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

The original request for deletion review has been refactored due to length, for clarity, and to remove gaudy formatting. It can be viewed in its entirety here. Kimchi.sg 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it. For sources:

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction)
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film)
  7. the souvener progam to the movie
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child!
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010

And in the end, Angr listed the film synopsis for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis). I chose to wait until the last day to cast my actual vote (though I did inset a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 27%, Merge - 4 votes 27%

Only 4 out 15 people voted to DELETE the article. An equal number wanted the article merged (i.e. unsplit) with the original main article. But the majority voted TO KEEP THE ARTICLE! Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was delete?

I contest this action – it can not be allowed to stand. These people have spit into the faces of the various members of the Wikipedia community and defied the final decision. If everyone had come on and said Delete, I would have no problem with this. But the majority voted to Keep the article. The action of deleting the article is therefore a morally and ethically wrong action that must not be allowed to stand. The majority at the time said that the article should not have been deleted. On that basis, I ask for the action to be reversed. -- User:Jason Palpatine speak your mind 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over a 2 month period, I showed more than enough facts to semonstrate that the charges leveled for AfD were untrue. Despite this the charges were upheld with the truth being totally ignored -- as just about everyone here is doing. I have laid out the truth in detail here. The facts are overwhelming -- but you and the other completly ognore it! -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Wikipedia for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.
    I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:
    • Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
    • If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
    • Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.
    If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have come to the conclusion that this would probably better fit on Wikibooks. --Improv 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has been said before elsewhere. In reply to the points/questions raised above:

Question #1: Are the books User:Jason Palpatine cites physically in his possession?

  1. Kubrick's "2001" by Leonard F. Wheat -- is physically in my possession.
  2. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker -- Library copy (since returned)
  3. The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stephanie Schwam (Editor), Jay Cocks (Introduction) -- is physically in my possession.
  4. Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter (Foreword by Arthur C. Clarke) -- Library copy (since returned)
  5. 2001 Filming the Future by Piers Bizony -- is physically in my possession.
  6. The Making of Kubrick's 2001 by Jerome Agel (its almost a bible to the film) -- is physically in my possession.
  7. the souvenir program to the movie -- is physically in my possession.
  8. the jewel of my collection, the April 1968 issue of LIFE magazine with its first pictorial preview of the film from beginning to end. It even showed the Star Child! -- is (as the comment indicates) physically in my possession.
  9. and of course, Arthur C. Clarke's novels of 2001 and 2010 -- both are physically in my possession and read more than once.

In response to this question, I have ordered Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey : New Essays by Robert Kolker and Moonwatcher's Memoir: A Diary of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Daniel Richter today through www.amazon.com. Delivery estimate: June 19, 2006 - June 21, 2006

Question #2: If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?

  • Utilizing copyrighted materials is not allowed here. I am required to use my own words regardless of source material. As I understand things here, except for a few quotations (which are in the article) direct copyright material inclusion is not allowed. I must use my own words. It is these two policies that are being used in conflict to support the outlandish claim that the article is original research.
  • I have noted before that I do not understand how to do citations in an article. I've been to the instructions page and it is beyond my understanding.
  • How much of references do I need to cite? A sentence-by-sentence referencing is just too much IMHO. Also, when claims were made of WP:OR, no justification other than the accusation itself was offered. There is nothing to prevent anyone here from looking up and checking the references listed.. I am willing to commit some time to it. However, I am not an administrator and have other considerations such as my job to consider.

Question #3: If Jason Palpatine is prepared to rewrite the article in such a way that it is crystal clear that it is not his personal recollection from having watched the movie, is truly based on published sources, and does not involve more than fair use of published sources, I would vote to relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In May, the following tags were applied to the main article:
{{cleanupdate}}
{{split}}

According to User:Scm83x: ”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”
I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with
Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)
in the main article.
If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article [as of 18:50, 18 April 2006] In other words, that original article material was produced by other editors here.
The following editors all contributed to the article in the month before I took a serious interest:
User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS
This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was
"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all."
The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

Question #4: What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:
13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)
11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)
Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

Question #5: Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

I was unaware of the fact that the DVD would be considered a valid listing. Your proposal is interesting. MORE than interesting. If such an undertaking would be allowed I would gladly do it!

Question #6: The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.

I do not know or understand how to create inline references. The istructions are beyond my comprehension.

Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub-article] inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to (Pasted from the original article Talk page):

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:
"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."
In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal WebPages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. -- Scm83x hook 'em 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but Wikipedia copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it.

My sources are list above.

When he made his decision, fuddlemark wrote:

"The result of the debate was delete. The arguments for deleting the article -- one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, unencyclopaedic tone -- are well made, and are not refuted in this discussion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

?

Administrator fuddlemark went against the majority in the discussion and declared “The result of the debate was delete.” This goes against any possible concept of fair play or policy that I can think of. The majority says ”KEEP” and this guy proclaims the result of the debate was DELETE?

OK. Lets go over it again:

The subjects were debated at length on Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) – with the deletion of the article, all of this has been lost.

Accusation -- Original Research.

  • In discussions(qv) over the past month I presented my side of the matter and my sources (listed above). The only way to demonstrate that the article is not original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. When the accusation was presented, I listed my sources – all reliable, published sources. The claim that this article contains any original research has been shown to be an outright lie.

Accusation -- one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source).

  • First, I have listed above 57 users who contributed to the article in the month prior to my involvement and the act of splitting of it from the main article about the film. This information was/is available in the edit history of the primary article 2001: A Space Odyssey (film).
  • Second, neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. No proof has been presented that the article at the time of the motion did not conform to this policy. The synopsis article was a recounting of the events in the film. What is being advocated by the detractors here was the complete absence and elimination of viewpoints – which is impossible in any written work. Writing style and presentation are factors in every presentation (because they are created by people); even when it is completely non-bias. Whether done by a single individual or the combined whole of 57 or more people (as in this case) the result will not be the elimination of viewpoints.
  • Third, there are no value opinions expressed in the article – only facts and quotations of comments by the creators and a select trio of paragraphs from the book that correlate clearly with the events being reported.

Accusation -- Unencyclopedic tone.

  • What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? There is nothing in the Wikipedia about it. The article is a recitation of a series of events. What about that could be considered “unencyclopedic?” This accusation is nonsense.
When my edits to the article came under ATTACK, I defended my position. I presented clear, concise arguments – whereupon I was accused of original research. I responded to this false accusation by citing my sources of information -- which were labeled "irrelevant"! That is called hypocrisy.

What more substantiation of this article do I need? I have asked this question time and again without any clear answer other than the repetition of the outlandish claims of “one man's interpretation (thus not neutral or a tertiary source), copyright, inappropriate detail, and unencyclopaedic tone.”

If the facts I have listed here (and in discussions held on other talk pages for the past 2 months) do NOT refute the charges made in the motion to AfD the article, I would appreciate someone explaining to me how that is possible.

Finally, the vote tally. . Administrator fuddlemark commented in a message to me: “I can't imagine why you think the vote tally has any relevance to the way I or anyone else closes AfD discussions.” How can it not? A majority of people was of the opinion that deletion of the article was wrong. Arguments are unnecessary in light of majority opinion. When a majority says one thing, and the powers that be go against it – that is the big stick approach (i.e. Might makes right). Such an approach to the maintenance of a work as the Wikipedia is wrong. Even if the letter of the rules allows it, I consider it to be unethical under its spirit.

This last item is the primary (but not) only reason for my request here. The action is wrong. Also, for two months now I have time and again refuted the charges that were the basis of the motion for AfD. Isn’t that enough?

Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) speak your mind[reply]
  • Comment: No. That's not how these discussions are done. All deletion discussions (and deletion review discussions) are organized chronologically to the maximum extent possible. This makes it easier to return to the discussion to see if new evidence has been presented which might cause us to change our opinions.
  • Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote and no delete arguments were refuted, as the closing admin said. --Rory096 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). This level of detail is clearly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. The closing admin was within reasonable discretion when closing the discussion and clearly articulated why the straight vote-count was overruled. Note: I have no objection to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of a transwiki to Wikibooks. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"no delete arguments were refuted"!!! Are you saying that everything I have laid out here does not refute any of the delete arguments? None at all? That makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. -- Jason Palpatine 06:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said: If the facts I have listed here (and in discussions held on other talk pages for the past 2 months) do NOT refute the charges made in the motion to AfD the article, I would appreciate someone explaining to me how that is possible.

Is there noone who will give this request of mine a clear point for point response. -- Jason Palpatine 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Underground

Fellow Wikipedians, the article in question was initially called for deletion by User:BenBurch who has a history of initiating edit wars & deletions on conservative pages such as Free Republic & White Rose Society. On January 17,2006 this proposed deletion was closed by User:Johnleemk, and the result of the debate was no consensus; keep. A second deletion debate was initiated on April 14, 2006 by User:Isotope23 and on April 20, 2006it was closed by admin User:(aeropagitica), resulting in a deletion. The Conservative Underground article had been vandalized countless times before it's deletion by the same people who voted for it's deletion. It is pretty obvious that these deletions are political motivated. Articles such as Democratic Underground, Free Republic, Protest Warrior, Vive le Canada, Progressive Bloggers, Blogging Tories, etc... are allowed to remain.--James Bond 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. ad hominem fallacy, even supposing it were true ("BenBurch has a history..."; irrelevancy ("The...article had been vandalized countless times"); and begging the question ("It is pretty obvious..."): lots of rhetorical fallacies, there. About the only undisputedly true bit is "A second deletion debate ...result[ed] in a deletion", so let's leave it at that, absent any actual evidence of actual wrongdoing in the process or change in the subject. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

08 June 2006

Joseph D. Campbell

This article was nominated for deletion, and was closed by User:9cds (not an admin, although going through RfA at the moment) as 'no consensus'. I think that was a poor call. The five people expressing the view that the article should be deleted made far better arguments - mainly about that annoying little fact that articles should be, you know, verifiable, and even if he was verifiable, he's not notable - than the three who thought it should be kept (including one weak keep, and one that said 'the sources will come organically', which is ridiculous). See the AfD for more details. I would have deleted this, and I recommend overturn the closure, and delete. Proto||type 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds(talk) 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as per MartinRe or at least relist. As previously mentioned, one reference is a letter to the editor. A person can write almost anything to the editor and get it published (perhaps not for very large newspapers, though). The other reference is a journal with a less than rigorous publication policy - it can't be incoherent. They also charge authors for publishing their work. Finally, the references were probably obtained from the subject's website, so they are really references for the website rather than for the article (there should be a policy about not using such second hand references if there isn't already). -- Kjkolb 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. No consensus is correct, but more debate is clearly needed since the problems with the article are significant and need to be addressed. Just zis Guy you know? 16:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality

(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality.) --66.28.20.178 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality website

The Church of Reality is a religion, based on what is tangible and real. Somehow, for some reason, its article (and even its talk page) was deleted, with little to no apparent reason. This is really no different from deleting an article on any other religion, which is unfair censorship. I'm asking whoever deleted it to either give a truly good reason as to why it should stay deleted, or undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.178.151 (talk • contribs) 06:59 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion and salt the earth. Too many times in too many places, editor can always bring this to DRV again if the notability merits recreation. Shell babelfish 05:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinen's

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinen's
  • Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [74]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. . Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, [75], Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The regional importance of this organization--given that it is privately owned--signals its importance for inclusion and notability. Irongargoyle 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment confuses me. What facts lead you to believe that this business holds "regional importance"? And why would being privately owned increase that importance? As someone living in the region, I can attest that it's not significantly different from any other US grocery store chain. Rossami (talk)
  • Overturn, Undelete. It seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be that my standards are skewed (not being American, and therefore not familiar with a world where a chain of sixteen supermarkets could be considered run-of-the-mill (or, indeed, a "small business")), but this certainly seems to be notable to me. Regardless, I'm disturbed by the quoting of percentages and formulae and other utterly irrelevant stuff above as "proof" that the article should have been kept/deleted/stuffed up someone's nose, whatever. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[76].

This article was originally just a thin article that was nothing and was speedily deleted. Later the article was recreated, and I assisted in the overall betterment of the article. Again, the article was proposed for deletion, but on the grounds of a repost. However, Mike Rosoft restored the article stating, "Sufficiently different content from deleted material to warrant a new discussion/vote." The article remained standing and again was nominated for speedy in which I placed a hangon tag, another admin (I don't whom exactly, and I don't want to place names) agreed with the previous decision and stated that it was an entirely new article and deserved to stay up. Today, the article was deleted by Eskog for being a "repost." I am challenging this decision and request for undelete. The article is vastly stronger and signifies notability. Also, the repost decision was overturned before. It doesn't seem logical just to eliminate it for just that. Respectfully, Yanksox 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mending Wall

This article was deleted by User:Royboycrashfan without any discussion. As far as I understand the deletion process, this is not wikipedia policy.

I am happy to resolve any copyvio problems. Tomandlu 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

This longstanding, tongue-in-cheek, satirical userbox was in line with other tongue-in-cheek, satirical user boxes. Administrator Tony Sidaway deleted this page citing its apparently inflammatory content. (See his talk page.) This userbox is clearly humorous and should not have been arbitrarily deleted like this. An example of this userbox is on my talk page. Nova SS 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you are the only person who has that userbox included on the userpage, does it really matter? I don't really think it's a T1 candidate, but the content was not really very useful either. I think the thing is OK to leave subst:ed on your userpage. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[77] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein summer of '06
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC

I am not voting at this time, just facilitating. Postdlf 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [78], [79], [80], [81] and [82]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cum On Her Face

Very popular porn site I really dont know why was it deleted. Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete and list on AfD per GTBacchus. Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning (below) TheJC TalkContributions 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, proper A7. "Recognized worldwide" is, like "good chess player", not an assertion of notability. An assertion of notability is claiming to have won a significant chess tournament or "Best Cumshot Website of 2006" at the World Porn Awards. And don't bother relisting until someone turns up a reliable source to base an article on. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse per CSD A3 and WP:NOT a web directory. Did not actually say anything about the site that wouldn't be pretty obvious from the name. Permit recreation (subject to WP:WEB) if something encyclopedic can be written about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until someone can evidence notability. per Sam Blanning. Bastique▼parler voir 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse per Sam Blanning clearly violates WP:NOT Whispering 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Ilmari; the article didn't inform beyond describing the practice that is the website's obvious subject matter. Though there's no reason why this shouldn't just be blandly listed, without elaboration, in a list article of porn sites somewhere. Something can be notable yet insubstantial, and so like the good information scientists we are we should ensure it gets incorporated into the proper place rather than trying to write a separate treatise on it. Postdlf 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • It was written as an ad, whatever your motivation. If you want to discuss what it is, when it was created, who uses it, and can document it, that's fine, I have no problem with a re-creation, but as it stood, all it did was to extoll its features. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks for the clarification! Manny 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [83] 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]
  • Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 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]
  • Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
    • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Rossami. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion doesn't make the Wikipedians look very good. What is the point of spending so much energy to exclude and defend against a bio entry for some guy who obviously has a following? It's not like the page was false, inflamatory, or libelous. If there were no other bio pages for minor notables the argument against allowing this guy would carry some weight, but clearly there are lots of such pages. For example, there are a dozen Chris Taylors, none of whom is particularly notable. 66.245.31.155 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please do some research and nominate those pages for deletion as well. We are striving for consistency but we must do so by raising the standards of the encyclopedia, not starting a race for the bottom. The fact that other inappropriate articles have not yet been cleaned up can not be a justification to fail to clean up this one. Rossami (talk)
    • If you will note, from WP:DVAIN (74% support), it was suggested that in the Wikipedia community there is "reservations about overuse of this policy [WP:CSD A7]" and "while the policy is approved, please consider these matters ..." The official policy continues by stating speedy deletion should only occur when "there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability." Now, the original article was clearly vanity by Mr. Cubis, or his subjects, but nonetheless the article could be written by an unbiased individual and several people here clearly would. Thus, the argument should strictly be if the subject of the article, Shane Cubis, qualifies as notable. In this case it is strongly suggested, by official policy, to take the article to WP:AfD and not claim WP:CSD A7. The page never should have been protected deleted inhibiting an unbiased NPOV article and thus a fair WP:AfD discussion. I think there are many people here making an argument for notability, which should be the only real issue, and most of the opposition will not even take up this issue. They claim it is strictly vanity, but that is rather irrelevant and illogical. If it was strictly a vanity issue we could fix it with a simple edit; we could write only horrible things about him and make the article rather humiliating. With that said, given the tone of the important users here, I am sure this measure will fail, but nonetheless just an observation...JustOneJake 09:24, 11 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]
      • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
  • 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]
  • Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[86][87][88] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Bduke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2006

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]


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=58064652"