Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

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

Content review

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

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

• If it's at all possible, I'd like to see the deleted content on Switchtrack Alley so that I can userfy it and improve it there before resubmitting it as an article.Nathanfk13 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  This is already under discussion below. Please move your request down there. We try not to fragment discussions. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• The reason I put this here was that a user in that discussion referred me to up here. If there is a more appropriate place for it, I can say it again there, I guess.Nathanfk13 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• 16:09, 3 April 2006 Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", providing the edit summary: (complete slander). Now, obviously, his claim is false; one could argue that it's libel, but it's certainly not slander! But that's just a technicality, and I don't mean to engage in Wikilawyering, other than for comic effect; Zanimum just doesn't know the meaning of the word 'slander'. Seriously, Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", apparently because he felt it was libelous. However, he deleted a large amount of sourced, verifiable content as well, and I also dispute that it was libelous (I would opine that speedy deletion, which seems to be what occured, is appropriate in actual cases of libel.) If someone could restore, and/or make available to me the deleted version (this?), so we can come to some amicable agreement as to what is appropriate for the article, (and slander :) ) that would be appreciated. In addition, opinions as to what in the deleted article might have been considered libelous, given the verifiable sources, would be appreciated as well. There were efforts to balance the article - inclusion of positive and negative statements; admittedly, it could be less disparaging, and I'll work more on that. I would like to work toward restoring sourced claims while respecting NPOV and avoiding libelous statements. Efforts to resolve the issue have failed - Zanimum has been unresponsive to posts to the page and Talk:Upfront_Rewards. Prior to the deletion, I had done research to find further sources to back up other claims I added and would like to add, and was the only editor to make any effort to reconcile views (IIRC). I'm happy to hash this all out on the :talk page prior to edits of the article. Elvey 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As requested, I have reviewed the deleted content. While it probably did not qualify for any of the narrow speedy-deletion criteria, I decline to undelete it. I concur with Zanimum's core assessment that the deleted content was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If an article on this topic is appropriate, it will be better to start the article from scratch. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not really what I (intended to) request but thanks for your time. The content of the deleted article is what I asked for. I do have a valid email address registered, for [1].

Would an admin please make it available?

Hello, Could somebody please help userfy a copy of the old text that I wrote on 1313 Mockingbird Lane that was deleted ? I am not sure how to work and keep a draft on my user page. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hamilton Styden 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• Please restore for the current debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 15#Subdivisions to appropriate divisions:
  • Category:Political divisions of the United States and its Talk. This was apparently deleted last year without going through the usual CfR process, and the history would be useful in the current CfR debate. --William Allen Simpson 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:Administrative divisions of South Korea and its Talk. As above. --William Allen Simpson 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• On April 3 I moved Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism. Another user moved the page back to its original title and the talk page was "lost." I have been repeatedly harassed since then. Please re-add the original talk to Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Thanks. KI 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Charities with ties to terrorism has never existed and Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism has its history complete. What exactly are you missing? -Splash^talk 23:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Other

These are not, strictly speaking, history only undeletions, and they have not been done.

• Wikipedia:articles for deletion/Concepts in Atlas Shrugged and
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology in Atlas Shrugged were both closed as

  transwiki to Wikibooks:Atlas Shrugged and delete.

In both case I support the decision; but the deletion has been done and the transwikiing appears not to have been. Since one reason for the proposal was to preserve the page history as far as possible, I prefer not to cut and paste. Please finish this. Septentrionalis 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 May 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 16}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

21 April 2006

SilentHeroes

See AfD debate here

This page was deleted even though the new page was a complete new setup and was NOT the orinal one brought back. If a page is deleted, how can ever a proper page be added at that address if admins keeps deleting and protecting the new, proper, page?

The page contained a full range of info, screenshots and misc about the mod SilentHeroes. Several other mods, with much worse pages, are being keeped, but this one is continiusly attacked. It's not enough one editor wrote 'Death to Sweden' as the original Delete-message? Very bad taste and wikipedia should be above this kind of behavior.Zarkow 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, policy was followed here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, policy wasn't followed. I'm sorry, but you are confused, and I understand why. The page above is refering to the OLD page, NOT the NEW page. They are COMPLETELY different. Is there any rules against adding new pages with valuable content after a (in editors taste) a lacking page was deleted? If so, how can ever a page be added (submitted) after a deletion? Zarkow 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

20 April 2006

Cool (African philosophy)

The AFD (found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cool (African philosophy)) was closed by Mailer Diablo as "uhhhhh...no consensus". After reviewing the discussion, I would have closed this as a delete (with a slight merge into Cool (aesthetic)), as the 19 editors who actually cited Wikipedia rules (it's an acknowledged POV fork, it's basically unverified, it's original research) agreed, with the reasons to keep consisting of 2 unfounded and rude speedy keep votes accusing the nominator of bad faith (no actual reason to keep the article), and 4 other fairly unconvincing keep votes (in order: creator of the article, someone who doesn't really get WP:NOR or WP:V, one with no actual reason to keep (just an attempt to defend the two who voted speedy keep), and one that states "worthy of an article", but doesn't say why). Oh, and a joke vote from an anon that says "Such a delightful example of very impressive and quite meaningless gobbledegook should not be lost to mankind".

I would have deleted this, and I think it really should have been closed as such. I'd like to suggest overturn the original 'no consensus' decision and delete. Proto||type 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Can I suggest it's pointless running this debate separately from the below debate about African Aesthetic? David | Talk 12:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Am I being dim or isn't this a different article that POV forked its way from the one you mentioned? Proto||type 12:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Same article, different article, merged article or whatever, it's essentially the same debate. David | Talk 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I believe it's useful to discuss this Afd closure, here. It's related, but really a seperate issue. I personally don't agree with closing it as a "no consensus"- consensus was clear that this should not be a seperate article. However, as one involved in the discussion, I realize I'm not neutral on this issue. I'd like people's inputs on whether there is something there other than a "no consensus". Friday (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• PS. My "vote" is overturn and redirect or (less good) delete. Friday (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Consensus was there and clear. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Proto. The balance of substantive discussion was that this article is straight original research; removing the unsourced text leaves an empty article. It is an acknowledged POV fork, and the only bit worth keeping is the intro, which could go in BJAODN. I can't say I blame Stifle, mind, since the debate was a mess. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure I'm going to assume, in closer's favor, that he found reason to discount several delete votes. My perception of this request is also altered by its having arisen in response to the related one below. Xoloz 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD may not be a vote but there was clearly no consensus to delete. If in doubt, don't delete. We should rightly be reluctant to throw out the good faith opinions of editors on the grounds that they did not cite a particular rule to justify their decision. David | Talk 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe the closer was discounting delete votes for some reason, but we cannot tell this from looking at how it was closed. In tricky cases, I'd really prefer people to explain their reasoning as best they can. Also, due to specific implementation details of the MediaWiki software, deleting and redirecting aren't technically the same thing. This should not mean that we always count delete and merge votes differently - here the reasons given by the merge crowd and the delete crowd had some overlap. I myself am a fence-sitter on the merge/delete issue - ideally, I want the history to be kept in case there's merging to be done. (I already attempted some merging) The thing there was clearly no consensus for was this continuing to be an independant article, and it would be a shame to close it by keeping it seperate. Friday (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, of course. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There were also the ones who wanted this merged, and unless they say otherwise they count against deletion. This was a messy AFD, and a "no consensus" closure does seem within reasonable bounds. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Computerjoe's talk 07:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth

This was deleted in a very short discussion, populated as far as I can tell only by users who had come from the Pope Benedict XVI article. There seem to have been two arguments. 1) That the Hitler Youth had 8 million members. 2) That it was intended as a political slur.

The first argument is an obvious non-starter. We have a Category:Germans even though there are millions of Germans. More importantly, Categories imply notability because they only include members notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I count between 20-30 members, but its hard to tell because vigilante users simply remove their favorite historical figures from the category before nominating it for deletion. More on this below.

The second argument is also specious. It's not a political slur if it's true. Being a member of the Hitler Youth is notable and therefore encyclopedic. If there is evidence that the person was forced to join, etc. that is also notable and should be (and is) said in the article. No different than being a member of the Mickey Mouse Club, which I understand their is a category for.

I created Category: Hitler Youth without knowing that this category had been deleted earlier. I believe my title is a more appropriate title per Wikipedia's naming conventions. Hence, Presidents of the United States rather than Former presidents of the United States. Members of the group were called "Hitler Youth" from what I understand. I know this technically isn't an undeletion, but I want to get consensus for the categories existence before I add any more members to it. And since it was deleted through CFD, DRV is necessary. Think of it as an undelete followed by a rename. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Because membership of the Hitler Youth was mandatory when it existed, what possible use is this category? It would be the same as Category:Germans who were underage during the Third Reich, which would make it so broad that it would be useless. I think whoever created this category only intended to insult the current Pope. I do not like the Pope either but there's no sense in insulting him about something he had no control over. JIP | Talk 07:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of Germans moved out or were killed because of the third reich, so no its not the same thing.--Urthogie 09:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete Notable members of Hitler Youth has a relevance. It was a large organisation. Why should we simply ignore its existence because of its mechanism of entry. Being born in a country gives you automatic citizenship. Its not consistent to use that argument in both places. We also shouldn't delete a category because it might insult someone. Thats ignoring history. Reminds me too much of an insightful novel that predicts such behaviour, and its consequences. Ansell 08:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete MikeHobday 08:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and Listify (either on a separate page or on the Hitler Youth article, depending on length). Categories are primarily for straightforward, uncontroversial facts lacking in complex nuances. This category is clearly a matter of contention in terms of its significance, and clearly there's a world of difference between members who later went on to become nazis and ones who later went on to become popes. :) A list, unlike a category, could properly deal with such details, making it a more seful utility. Also, since undeleting a category won't tell us what its original entries were, I'm not sure this undeletion would serve any real purpose, unless there was some useful aspect of the page's description. -Silence 09:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I hate that idea. Lists are prone to having names added without anyone telling the editors on the subject article. Categories are good, and if people edit-war over a category where there is evidence to support inclusion then they shgould be trout-slapped. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• And categories are prone to having names added without anyone telling the editors on the "list/category of Hitler Youth members" itself, which is even worse. After all, numerous articles that could fit into a category like this will be watched by few, if any, people, making it near-impossible to maintain the category if it grows large enough, as it will be extraordinarily difficult to tell when new entries have been removed or added. A list, on the other hand, makes it possible to specifically observe exactly when changes are made to that list, be they additions or removals, and if one of the changes is dubious, a user can then easily ask about it on the page of the person in question! -Silence 09:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not really, no. Every article is likely to be on some people's watchlists. Just zis Guy you know? 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted That the Pope etc were members of this organisation, is notable and should be noted in thier articles. I'd also support a list here. But should we have categories for every large organisation and all its members. 'Members of the Church of England' would include 75% of all English people, even when most are not prominently involved. 'Boy Scouts'? Members of the National Trust? We could clutter every prominent bio with 50 odd organisations that the individual has been involved with at some point in life - even when most are incidental to understanding the person. --Doc ^ask? 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Per Doc above. This membership, though significant, is too large for a category, and too charged with POV to mention otherwise. Listify as necessary. Also, I don't see any assertion that the CfD process was improper. -Will Beback 09:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid CFD debate with a fair amount of participation, and arguments presented there, as well as by JIP are convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. What do you guys mean, listify? Anything that can be a list can be a category too. In fact, categories are supposed to have tons of articles in them. And the assertion that this category is POV is ridiculous; its an objective fact whether or not someone was a member of the hitler youth.--Urthogie 09:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Anything can be a list can be a category too" - Completely untrue. Thousands of things that can be a list can't be a category. Almost everything that can be a category, on the other hand, can be a list. -Silence 09:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant to point out is that anyone who said "listify" should be willing for it to have an accompanying category.--Urthogie 09:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Why? I'm not saying it's unacceptable for there to be a category, but clearly a list would be better in this case than a category, because it would be easier to keep cited (and thus verified), easier to add much-needed biographical data and context to so the influence and details of the individuals' time in Hitler Youth can be clarified, and easier to explain the significance of overall. Plus there already is a category for this: Category:Hitler Youth. -Silence 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Any time there's a list there can be a category, as you said. So voting listify and delete creates a situation where we have a list thats not connected to any category whatsoever. Also, please note that Category:Hitler Youth covers not only members, but also the subject of the Hitler Youth itself.--Urthogie 09:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion since it is functionally equivalent to Germans born between 1920 and 1930. Just zis Guy you know? 09:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That exclude Germans who's families moved out, or weren't allowed in the Hitler Youth because they were Jewish, disabled, black, gyspy, etc.--Urthogie 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So then the category could also be titled Category:German children born between 1920 and 1930 who were not Jewish, disabled, black, gypsy, etc.? FCYTravis 16:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, it was a unanimous delete on CfD, and no new info has been presented. There's no policy problem here, and none claimed. It looks like this DRV was solely started because the user disagreed with the deletion. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

19 April 2006

Jeniferever

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeniferever

Deleted a little while ago, where it was predicted (correctly) that the article would be shortly recreated, by other people. A band that has been reviewed by major media [2] and less-than-major medi (many blogs), pretty many Google hits, etc. The deleted article was superior to the current version, and should be rescued and put in place of the current article, in my opinion. See Talk:Jeniferever for frustration with process. What do others think? zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but do not prohibit recreation, as there is no policy problem or new information here. Though I see nothing wrong with letting the existing article stay on Wikipedia. I can provide you with the deleted text, if you'd like, and you can integrate it back in. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'll undelete the history if you like. This is a great example of why we should wait until after things happen before trying to document them. We have no need to scoop anybody. Just zis Guy you know? 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominionist political parties Afd

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_shock_sites

Double post, see below. Having received, albeit indirectly per the link above to ani, a complaint regarding this closure I'm bringing it here for review. The issue in the was not if the term "Dominionist" is in parlance, but if there existed citations showing the organisations in the article were Dominionist. No such citations were provided. To me, that's the end of the story. An alternative approach would have been to delete everything that was unsourced and per the title change this to an article on dominionistic ploitical parties in general. Some citations for that topic were presented in the AfD discussion by FeloniousMonk. However we already have dominionism so what would be the point? If an article with proper citations (probably moved to List of Dominionist political parties) appeared that would be a good thing, but this wasn't it.
brenneman^{L} 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of unsourced list. Plus this is what categories are for: if parties are identified as dominionist by credible sources they can be added to the category:Dominionist parties, and editors on the individual articles can debate the merits of that. Just zis Guy you know? 09:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A well done close. The problem with the AFD, was there two parellel discussions going on. Most arguing keep, were really arguing that "dominionism" is a valid topic, worthy of an article, and the nominator had a POV. All true, and all irrelevant. The issue was whether any specific parties on the list, were actually verifiably "dominionist". No relevant sources were ever given in the AFD, and *none* were in the article. I didn't see a single person in the AFD, or in talk, claim "Party X is a dominionist according to Source Y". Much of the "keeps" seem to be motivated as a counter to the nominator's POV desire to remove all mention of "dominionism". Basically, they had a case againt the nominator, but no case for the article. --Rob 12:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I can justify this close using the logic that the debate shifted near its end to the central issue of WP:V -- all prior votes are discountable, as they were missing the point. Right on the merits here. Xoloz 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• When the vote was clearly 'no consensus', this closing was undemocratic, without consensus, unilateral and pure 'Aaron knows best' IAR elitism. I love it - endorse deletion and give the juniour cabalist a cookie. --Doc ^ask? 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. I agree. If you think an article needs sources, tag it. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. This also sets a very bad precedent. Even though the merits of the article were debated for all to see with a majority of voters recommending keeping the article, none counted as much as Aaron's. All that matters is that a single administrator wanted to delete the article. How would any of you feel if you were tried for a crime and acquitted by a jury, then some guy off the street put you in jail anyway? Someone complains, and you get tried again, this time in front of his friends and there's no evidence (or in this case, no article). What a system.--Primetime 21:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You bring up an interesting analogy. Suppose you were accussed of a crime. No evidence was presented. But you were convicted anyhow of being something bad. No matter what you did, you couldn't remove the stigma. That's what the creator of Dominionist political parties did to the parties he branded "dominionist". Nobody, cited *any* source to prove any of those parties were known as "dominionist". It's simple a matter of a lack of evidence. There was *no* evidence. The article never cited *one* source. If any sources were cited, we could have an honest debate, about the legitimacy of the source. But no source was ever cited *in* the actual article. So, yes, we should not convict people without cause. --Rob 22:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know the situation. I can't even see the article, and this isn't an AFD. Maybe it is widely known the parties are dominionist. I do know that ten versus five other human beings voted to keep it. I also know that the burden of proving that the drastic step of deleting an article should be taken lies on the nominator. The default action is keeping the material--and for good reason. This is really scary. Most of the information on Wikipedia is uncited. That means that anyone who happens to be an administrator can delete an article if it doesn't happen to have sources. I have seen administrators under 15 years of age close debates. Do we want to give any administrator the green light to ignore the community? This debate isn't about whether anyone should have voted to delete the article or not. It's about whether it should have been closed the way it was.--Primetime 23:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore There were good, policy-based reasons for the poeple who said keep to keep. To delete was unecessarily out of process and unproductive. JoshuaZ 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• There were three entries, none of which had sources and all of which were disputed. A category was created, but thus far every article to which it has been applied has also been reverted as unsourced. The burden of proof is on the claimant here, and no evidence has yet been presented to support the application of this label to any individual party. As it stands we would have a verifiable but empty list, as we have a verifiable but empty category. Just zis Guy you know? 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against a future, legitimate article at the same or a similar title.-Polotet 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If anybody here seriously wants to have Dominionist political parties, you are perfectly free to immediately make the article. You don't need DRV's permission. All you need to do is cite a source for any names you add. Once, you do that, the article will be kept. Also, the old history could then be restored as well. The only reason for deletion was lack of proper sourcing. Get your sources, and get your article. If anybody wants to see the names on the original list, a kindly admin can undelete the names to somewhere in your userspace. You could move those names into article space, when you can cite sources. Can anybody explain to me, the value of restoring the article, until there are sources? --Rob 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Added: Apparently, the entire list of party names is still at Talk:Dominionist political parties#Old list. So, anybody can use those names, to recreate the article *if* it is properly sourced, regardless of DRV outcome. --Rob 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

List of themed timelines AfD

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_shock_sites

Double post, see above. Having indirectly received a complaint regarding this closure, I'm bringing it here for review. This was a large and fairly ancient page and the debate was limited, so I had a good think prior to deleting it. The arguments presented were "redundant" and later "unmaintainable." and the only serious attempt at refutation was that this was "all in one page." Slicky's response was borderline unintelligible, and a review of the article's history convinced me of the merits of the arguments to delete. This was a judgement call, and I'm intrigued that it was recreated when I was tardy in removing the redlinks. This was certainly the weakest case in which I've ever deleted, and if consensus is to re-open the debate with the existing recomendations in place I'll not be averse.
brenneman^{L} 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, redundant per category:timelines, adds maintenance overhead with no obvious benefit. Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Closer admits that debate was not extensive; I'm uncomfortable giving the axe to this ancient page without more eyes have a chance to see its redeeming features, even if I cannot find them myself. Xoloz 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• When the vote was clearly 'no consensus', this closing was undemocratic, without consensus, unilateral and pure 'Aaron knows best' IAR elitism. I love it - endorse deletion and give the junior cabalist a cookie. --Doc ^ask? 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete No policy cited by closer for their decision. Seems to just be a difference in editorial judgement. In such cases, go with the vote count. Policy can trump a vote, but an admin's vote is worth no more then anybody elses. In this case, the closing admin is effectively making themselves the sole voter. --Rob 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not commenting on this AfD in particular: Failing a clear policy to point to, isn't the closer's job to evaluate the arguments and only, as a last resort, to attempt to gauge consensus by counting noses? - brenneman^{L} 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither. You shouldn't just count noses, but you should gauge consensus. Gauging consensus is more complicated than keep/delete counts. You should read the arguements, and determine the consensus. Notice, as a comparison in Dominionist political parties. The arguements of most of the keep voters, indicated that they were argueing for something other then what was actually at issue. Hence discounting those votes, was legitimate (as they didn't relate to the relevant consensus). However in List of themed timelines the arguements were entirely on point. Incidently, the keep arguement about being on one page was actually correct, and you were mistaken. List of world's fairs is in Category:Culture-related timelines, which in turn is in Category:Timelines. List of world's fairs is directly on List of themed timelines (no extra clicking required). However, it's not directly on Category:Timelines. Your statement "Category:Timelines is already all in one spot." is literally false. The keep arguement was that by using a single page, one could, sometimes more easily find something. This is true, as a browser "Search in Page" function makes that easy (instead of navigating categories, and sub-categories). So, there was in fact a valid reason for having the list. Now, whether that reason, is sufficient to outweigh the serious problems of maintenance, is not for you to judge. What counts is the keep voters had a reason. You should not insert your reason, over top theirs, unless you have a policy basis to do so. --Rob 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not married to this close, and will happily re-open it without regret if another person or two chimes in, so don't let the following be misconstrued: Where are you getting that it's "my reason" from? That's twice you've explicitly said this without as far as I can see any evidence to suggest that I personally had an opinon one way or another. If this had been in an area where I some history (webcomics, nazi midget clown sex, etc) I might understand. You've presented JJay's argument far better than he did, I might add.
      brenneman^{L} 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

This article regarding the notable martial arts website www.bullshido.net has been completely deleted with no discussion or record of its existence except for a Google cache of it: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:G7G9LEV_RUoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshido.net+bullshido&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

I respectfully request that it be reinstated to its latest incarnation at the appropriate place, and if others wish it to be deleted, that it be done so within the rules of Wikipedia.

Thank you. --Scb steve 22:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• This was deleted by Dmcdevit as a recreation of previously AfD'd content. I can find no evidence that this exact page was previously discussed and deleted. Presumably, Dmcdevit was referring to Bullshido which was deleted on 18 May 2005 per this discussion. Reviewing the deleted versions of both articles, I find them to be similar but not quite close enough in my mind to qualify for the recreated content speedy-deletion criterion. Overturn speedy-deletion and list on AFD. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. I don't think we should even relist; this seems to have been a crossed wire. If Dmcdevit wants to start his own AfD after this is restored, he's free to, but why force it? Mangojuice 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Relist per Rossami. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Rossami.  RasputinAXP  c 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD per Rossami. This is a mistaken speedy, although the mistake was understandable. Xoloz 16:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Just saw this and thought I'd comment. I deleted the article because (despite the somewhat different name), it was the same subject as the previously deleted-by-AfD article. While the article's text was not identical (though it was similar), I looked at the AfD and saw that it was deleted for notability concerns, not really anything related to the article's content, so I determined that those notability concerns were still relevant, and that it qualifies as a recreation because it was previously decided that the topic was not notable. Perhaps I was too hasty, but it seemed better to do something about an article that was on a topic already deemed not notable, than to just leave it there. Dmcdevit·t 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not accurate, in my estimation. Bullshido.net is a notable website by both objective and subjective means, which were described in great detail within the discussion page of the original article when the same argument was brought up concerning notability. The .net article has few references to Bullshido as a concept, and is entirely devoted to the nature of the site, as well as notable achievements or features, very much akin to the Wikipedia articles on SomethingAwful, Newgrounds, or Slashdot. It is not the same subject. That is akin to saying an article on lawyers and another on the website lawyers.com are both on "the same subject." --Scb steve 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if you assert that the website is now more notable than it was before, and now merits an article, but it is very clear that the previous article was about the website, which was deemed to not be notable. See the nomination:

"Is basically an advert for bullshido.com, a martial arts training site. Does not appear that anyone uses the term outside of them. In any case the article is nearly all first person. Not likely to ever be an encyclopedic article, and is essentially vanity. - Taxman 22:37, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)"

This is why I said they were on the same subject and why I deleted it. Unless the subject's claim to notability has changed, it shouldn't be recreated. Dmcdevit·t 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is bringing up two different articles, the Bullshido article, and the .net article. I am talking only about the website now. I have made a very clear claim that the notability of the website merits the creation of an article regarding it alone, akin to SomethingAwful, etc. The merits of the Bullshido article have been brought up in the DRV section pertaining to it. When we're talking about a previous article, we're talking about a radically different one almost years ago. I respectfully request that the .net article be undeleted and a formal discussion regarding its validity be made within its discussion page. --Scb steve 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

William Hamlet Hunt

I created this article under my previous username User:People=Shit. Shortly after it's creation, it was speedied. I went to insert the 'hangon' templates, and to contest the deletion on the Speedy Deletion page, only to find I'd been blocked for an 'inappropiate username'. As my IP had been blocked also, I was unable to do anything to stop the deletion. By the time I'd managed to get my IP unblocked and a new username, it had already been speedily deleted. I'm requesting the page (and associated images) be restored, as speedily deleting an article while it's creator is blocked is manifestly unfair and against the spirit (if not the policy) of wikipedia. I'm happy for the article to then be submitted to AFD and be subjected to community consensus on it's merits. Killerman 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. It is an unsourced article about a person supposedly "wanted by police for the attempted murder of Heather", last name not indicated. It was posted with the edit summary "GET THIS FUCKER". This should not be restored or recreated unless it is properly sourced and contains some indication of why this is notable. Gamaliel 18:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I included 3 links, so it was not unsourced. The edit summary is irrelevant. If I hadn't been blocked, and the article speedied I would have asserted notability in the article on the grounds that this person has precipitated worldwide commentary and condemnation, in the region of thousands of comments about him. Killerman 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I apologize, I didn't scroll down far enough and I missed the links. However, they don't change anything. Two Livejournal and one myspace link are not sufficient. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Gamaliel 21:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a notice-board for wanted posters. David | Talk 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I removed this request as trolling, however, the user has reverted me. --Doc ^ask? 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I explained on your talk page, I was invited to list the article here. Therefore I'm not trolling. Killerman 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As the person who mentioned deletion review to you, I'm not sure I'd quite go as far as saying I'd invited you to post it here. I suggested you read WP:CSD and WP:NOT, which should have made it fairly apparent that the deletion was within process and the material unsuitable for wikipedia. --pgk^(talk) 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc. This is not encyclopaedia material. Just zis Guy you know? 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The main point of the listing is not the content itself, but the question of the actions taken in regard to the deletion. Look at the timeline of events. You have to admit the whole thing looks suspect - essentially the admins are saying "If you create an article we don't like, we'll speedily delete it while blocking you for an unrelated reason so you can't contest it, and making sure you can't create a new account to contest it with that". Now I'm not saying that is the case (assume good faith and all that) but in the interests of transparency, I think it's appropiate to undelete the article and establish community consensus, else it will appear that there is an either some kind of vendetta against me, or an attempt by the admins to censor by any means they consider necessary what they consider in their opinion contributions that don't meet wikipedia guidelines. Killerman 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're being allowed to contest it now, and community consensus is being established here, and it is thus: keep deleted per JzG. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc and JzG.  RasputinAXP  c 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Not encyclopaedic. --pgk^(talk) 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse the speedy-deletion as a bio with no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. There is no evidence convincing me that there is any possiblity of an encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I've seen several references to this on LJ as well. Nothing there and nothing here suggested to me that this fellow's crime, though certainly horrifying, made this person noteworthy enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Smerdis of Tlön 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as libel. Regardless of the subject's encyclopedicity, the article made no references to any official accusations or charges laid against the subject. Hence, its unquestioning statement that said person committed a crime is blatant and actionable libel, and has no place on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshido

This article was deleted over one year ago and changed to be a redirect to McDojo. [3]. The two main considerations put forth at that time for redirecting to McDojo were that "the Bullshido article was an advertisement for the site" and that "the article was indistinguishable from the McDojo one." The article as it exists now (before being reverted by an admin) contains pertinent information that stands distinctly from the Bullshido.net website. Additionally, the content of the article is greatly different from the McDojo article.

Bullshido and McDojo are two distinct concepts that do have some relation with each other. However, they are different enough and popular enough to merit their own pages. The McDojo article makes no substantiative discussion about fradulent business practices in the martial arts, while the Bullshido article makes few, if any, statements concerning the business-related aspects of martial arts.

Fire Star, an admin on Wikipedia, provided a great deal of assistance on how to properly phrase the language for Wikipedia guidelines, and the standards of evidence/substantiation. These articles have been greatly changed from their original form, and the Bullshido article deserves to be reinstated as separate and distinct from McDojo.--Scb steve 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Allow recreation The article has changed substantially and appears to have resolved the concerns from the old VFD. If someone feels otherwise, they could nominate it for deletion again. Mangojuice 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• I believe it is a viable candidate for an article. We have articles on everything Star Wars, Harry Potter or Captain Kirk ever did, this is a recognisable concept in Western martial arts circles, with at least one notable exposé to the concept's credit. --Fire Star 23:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The article exists. There's nothing here to review. That said, I can't find any reliable sources for this term.  RasputinAXP  c 03:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm with you; no real point to this debate, except for this edit summary implying that a DRV had to be done. Mangojuice 04:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here. But I don't see that this concept is sufficiently important to justify two closely related articles, so a merger is probably in order, and probably to a more neutral heading if one can be found. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

HAI2U

(see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HAI2U.)

It may be odd for me to ask that this deletion be reviewed, as I nominated HAI2U for deletion in the first place, but I really think Aaron Brenneman stepped over the line here. The votes were 5 for Merge/redirect or redirect to List of shock sites, 8 for keep, and 4 for delete, counting my vote. An admin might be inclined to dismiss one of the keep votes (from User:For great justice) and one of the redirect votes (from an IP).

I brought up two concerns in my deletion nomination: that this was a nn website probably not meeting WP:WEB, and that it only has an article because of its shock value. Later on I conceded that it probably was notable, but I added an additional concern about verifying its popularity. None of the editors participating in the debate commented on that concern. Personally, I endorse the right of an administrator closing an AfD to ignore consensus and delete if there is good evidence that the article is unverifiable. However, in this case, there is no such evidence: I didn't try especially hard to verify anything, and neither did anyone else. I don't think it's appropriate for an article to be deleted because it doesn't currently have sources, at least, not by WP:V over consensus.

I see (after previewing) that HAI2U has been re-created. Nonetheless, I think the debate should take place here, not on AfD, because it's the deletion decision that needs reviewing, and if the article is kept, its history should be undeleted too; it would be useful if anyone tries to improve the article. For my part, overturn and redirect to List of shock sites or relist. Mangojuice 16:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, Aaron closed this fine. Failure to provide reputable sources is an iron-clad reason to delete. Presumably if such sources exist for the topic it will be no trouble rewriting the article to avoid the problems that prompted its deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. Mr. Brenneman should be banned from closing AFDs from this point forward. Silensor 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but this one is one of being between the rock and the hard place. This is exemplaric for a self-governing consenus based community that wikipedia is. It might be not notable, but groups of editors can keep things in the system soley because of numeric power. Which is a good thing for topics that should be included, but a bad thing for things that are not included because they are encyclopedic, but just because people like to have them here despite of being non-encyclopedic. It is one of those great examples that suggest that an ArbCom-like mechanism to deal with content disputes is needed. KimvdLinde 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. There was no consensus. It was uncertain if WP:V was being interpreted correctly in this case, and community opinion showed that WP:V did not stipulate deletion. Also, other users are trying to get the article speedily-deleted and are also trying to blank it.--Primetime 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In fairness, I don't think community opinion said one thing or another about whether WP:V applies here, which is why I'm asking for a review. As for the recreated article, Kotepho, an uninvolved admin, decided it should be a redirect for now, so I think we should go with his opinion until this debate is over. The article should never have been recreated the way it was without going through a deletion review first. Mangojuice 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and delete the recreated version. I echo KimvdLinde's concerns. This was clearly a very difficult call. I mostly concur with Mangojuice's tally of the initial discussion. (I would have discounted another of the participants as a probable troll.) Nevertheless, the closer carefully explained his reason for overrulling the votecount. I concur with his concern that none of the "keep" votes cited a reliable source. No actual evidence was presented to rebut the evidence offered in the nomination. This is a discussion, not a mere vote and closing admins are allowed to exercise discretion in difficult cases like this. The closer was within reasonable discretion here. Rossami (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. We can't ignore WP:V, even if a bunch of 'keep' voters did. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Personally, I find the claim above that "community opinion showed that WP:V did not stipulate deletion" to be just plain weird. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion Good call by the admin, with bonus points for adding full explaination on closing. Afd is not based on simple weight of numbers, but weight of arguements/reasons given, based on policy. Also endorse speedy delete of recreation for CSD G4. MartinRe 00:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, ok part of my problem here was that I doubt anyone really looked for sources. I just did, and the following is the best I could come up with in 10 minutes. [4] It's a set of rules on a web forum, prohibiting links to shock sites, and it names only 3 examples, including hai2u. Mangojuice 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is the responsibility of those who want to keep an unsourced article to provide verifiable sources for it. Web forums are not accepted as reliable and reputable sources, per WP:RS. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you want, a front page NY Times story? When we're talking about Internet culture, web forums may be sufficient references. RS is a guideline, please don't cite it as if there is a blanket prohibition against ever using a web forum as a reference. Rhobite 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted, WP:V cannot be superceded here or on AfD. And Silensor, mind your manners. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can you be more specific please on what needs sourcing? The first sentence says that it's a popular shock site. Alexa.com says it gets ca. 450k hits every three months,^[5] so that proves it's popular. That statistic is in the article also, with that link to it. The word HAI2U also gets over 17,000 Google hits. The page says it's "written in w3c validated XHTML 1.0 Transitional markup", and that can be verified by visiting the site and clicking View-->Source in Internet Explorer. Finally, its date of creation is linked to Alexa and the fact that it's a shock site is verifiable by looking at the picture.--Primetime 01:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the Alexa rank. A rank of 450K means that it gets enough hits to make it about the 450,000th most popular site on the web, not 450K hits/month or anything like that. Alexa estimates that Hai2u has been exposed to about 3.1 per million users, or about 0.00031% of users. On the scale of websites, Hai2u is not popular. On the scale of shock sites, it might be, but it's harder to prove. Mangojuice 03:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What we need to verify is that 1) It's noteable, and 2) It has been/is used as a shock site. Foolish Child 16:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: AfD is not a vote. --Hetar 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. The AfD result was an obvious keep. I didn't realize we had reached the point where we simply throw away opinions we don't like. Rhobite 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, tentatively. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's overarching principles and no amount of keep votes can compromise that. Ballsy close, not something I would have touched, but fair and consistent with policy. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that I have redeleted the article under G4 until we can sort out the deletion over here. I won't redelete if someone resurrects it, but it's not a good idea. I'm leaving it redlinked so that if someone is really angry about it, they can put it back, but I'd advise against that...that'll only escalate things. Let's get some WP:TEA and finish up our discussion here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist for AFD quite obviously this was closed against a consensus, however it still has not proven to meet WP:WEB standards... relist on AFD and give it a longer discussion.  ALKIVAR™ 08:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as relisting it will just see another unverified and unverifiable article kept as 'no consensus' due to the AFD trolls who don't care about / understand WP:V voting keep to everything. Proto||type 11:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, it's hard to verify, but not impossible, and there was clearly not a consensus for deletion. Foolish Child 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete The article needs cleanup and verification, not pre-emptive deletion because of some admin's vendetta. Tag on {{Not verified}}, perhaps a merge suggestion to List of shock sites, and let Wikipedians work their magic. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 16:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, every stupid little shock site doesn't need its own article on Wikipedia.-Polotet 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

17 April 2006

African aesthetic

Event	Date	Note
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (archive)	5 Jan 06	Closed as "no consensus" by Angr
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)	02:53, 17 Apr	Closed as "no consensus" by Mailer Diablo
Merge discussion on talk page	13:34 to 19:16, 17 Apr	Last pre-redirect version here.
Redirected by Friday	03:01, 18 Apr
Reverted by Deeceevoice	03:04, 18 Apr	Edit summary "Rev. The decision of the administrator was made. No authority to merge."
Redirected by Friday	03:10, 18 Apr
Reverted by Deeceevoice	03:15, 18 Apr
Redirect discussion on talk page	01:54 to 03:16, 18 Apr
Redirected by and protected by Zoe	03:35, 18 Apr
"Deleted" discussion on talk page	03:25 to 04:44, 18 Apr
Merged by Friday	03:59, 18 Apr
Removed in next seventeen edits by Deeceevoice	05:03 to 05:34 18 Apr
(Re?)Created as "African aesthetic" by Deeceevoice	06:19, 18 Apr

Thus bringing us (at last) to the article in question.

• 23:51, 18 April 2006 Zoe deleted "African aesthetic" (recreation of peviously deleted content)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African aesthetic

Deleted by Zoe per link above, restored by FrancisTyers and taken to AfD per link above, Afd closed and page protected as {{tempundelete}} by me, and now we're here. brenneman^{L} 02:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - The article has barely started out. Covers a slightly different subject to previously deleted article and but one no uncited components — contains new sources — if it is original research it is new original research and should be AfD'd accordingly. - FrancisTyers 01:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There isn't any new research, it's still just one person's original research, even if they happened to write a book about it. As I have said in the past, we can have an article about the book, but an article which uses the book to establish some sort of evidence of the book's truth is a violation of WP:V. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• It's mostly a recreation of something just afd'd, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy). It's already been undeleted, so I think we're done here at DRV. There's some discussion to do at the talk page, tho. I'd really like more eyeballs on this whole situation for additional feedback. Friday (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, recreation of a previously-AfD'd article whose consensus was to merge and/or delete, but which Deecevoice keeps trying to retain, so when the article was redirected and the redirect protected, she created this article, which has the same problems of verifiability which the previous one did. This is nothing more than an unverified and unverifiable POV fork. Full disclosure: I deleted this once as a recreation, but Francis Tyers undeleted it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - there was no unverified or unverifiable "original research" in the version you deleted. - FrancisTyers 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: per User:zoe. --Hetar 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• What a tangled mess this one has become... I am unable to find a deletion discussion about this page that was concluded as a "delete" decision. The only discussions I've found so far were closed as "no consensus". The "recreated content" criterion only applies to content which has been previously discussed and deleted. Overturn the speedy-deletion unless there is another discussion that we don't know about yet. There are clearly still some serious issues with the article which must be resolved and it may become appropriate to relist the page, but for now this seems like an issue to sort out on the respective Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - There never was a Delete AfD. - FrancisTyers 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY UNDELETE. THIS COMPLETELY BAD-FAITH DELETION WAS PRECIPITOUS AND NOT DISCUSSED AT ALL BEFOREHAND. The article hasn't even had a chance to develop yet, having been up for less than a day. Deletion was precipitous and not even discussed before this action was taken. I notice there was a tag that suggested it be merged with African art -- a bad move. One most understand that the widely accepted elements of an "African aesthetic" are observable throughout many traditional African cultures; not just in art. This African aesthetic mediates not only artistic expression, but how individuals comport themselves, even how they speak, sit and stand. There is an article on Japanese aesthetics. There also should be an article treating the set of aesthetic/cultural values that has been observed in many traditional, indigenous African societies across tribal groupings, across national boundaries and which underpins so much of the life and art of African peoples. Finally, how on earth can people debate and then vote in any informed fashion the validity of an article without being able to view it and its discussion page? It's bad enough the article hasn't even been developed yet, but many who come across this page will have absolutely no idea what the article intends to treat. The very suggestion that the subject matter be merged with an article on art makes it very clear to me that those who support such a merger have no clue just what the African aesthetic is and how far-reaching its influence is. This very process is absurd on its face, and the precipitous deletion that has brought us all here -- if it isn't illegal in terms of Wikipedia procedures, it certainly should be. The people who support the deletion of this article are also under the mistaken impression that they can and should shoehorn a discussion of the complex phenomenon of African cool (only one aspect of a very complex African aesthetic) as it exists in tradtional African cultures into an article quite clearly and explicitly devoted to pop-culture cool, which features the Fonz as an example of cool. This is ridiculous and an utter trivialization of the traditional African phenomenon (just as the character Fonzie -- engaging as he was -- was a sitcom caricature/trivialization of bad-boy biker cool; even he wasn't the real thing). Frankly, such (mis)treatment is an insult to African culture(s) and betrays just how shallow/nonexistent people's knowledge/understanding of traditional African cultures is. And that is all the more reason this article should be restored. And immediately. The talk page of the article presented a list of sources for possible inclusion in the article. The article featured a partial list of constituent elements of the aesthetic. There is no unsourced information in the article; it is all readily and easily verifiable. If there are problems with the article as it develops, then let it be evaluated and scrutinized the way other articles are treated on this website. As it is, the bad-faith deletion of this article is tantamount to censorship born of abysmally uninformed POV/bias.Deeceevoice 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

An addendum: this action is clearly illegal and not in conformance w/Wiki policy.[6] Deeceevoice 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Eh? The page is there in the history, the talk page is there, there's a link in the introduction here to the last version of that first version of this page. Everything is there to see. - brenneman^{L} 04:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per Deeceevoice. I'm struggling to AGF here. David | Talk 08:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Appears to be a lot of confusion here what is what. First, "no consensus" or even a "keep" does not mean that the article must be kept as it is without any merge. The difference is an editorial one, and while one should be mindful of the discussion on an AFD, the be bold guideline still applies. Second, deletion is not part of a merge, the history should be retained. Third, AFD and DRV are not really the places to decide between redirect/merge/keep as separate article (those discussions are for article talkpages even though AFD often expediates such discussion by recommending merges and redirects). Since there was no AFD debate which had an outright "delete" result here, the deletion was in error, and I will say undelete. Regarding whether this should be kept, merged, or redirected, that discussion is for the talkpages. A big thank you to Aaron for picking up the threads and bringing this here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The deleted article was a brief but somewhat promising looking outline. While the very existence of an "African aesthetic" might be debatable, the article was beginning to make a case that one existed. Whether this will ultimately belong at "cool" or somewhere else is something I don't have an opinion about yet. We have a user who wants to write a referenced article about belief in an African aesthetic, but who is apparently being thwarted by edit wars at "cool" and this deleted page. Right now, he needs some space to work in. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete - no consensus. Apply normal editing from that point. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 16:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete An AfD closed as no consensus does not prevent a merging, but it does prevent a later deletion as "recreated content." Not sure what Zoe was thinking... I would suggest to DC that, if folks continue to obstruct her work in article space, she might work on a version in her userspace, and post it only when it is complete and referenced. Then, objectors will have no ground on which to base complaints. Xoloz 16:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly considered it. It may have been my next move had this not gone well. But such a thing is truly contrary to the Wiki process, which is collaborative. It's emblematic of the problems with this website that the process does not seem to be able to work when certain articles treating African peoples are at issue. It seems there are some who think the subject matter has validity/relevance only in a European/neo-European context. At least, that's been my experience here. Deeceevoice 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Further, I think it relevant to observe that nearly all those who have been seminally involved in this "conspiracy" to deliberately obstruct this sujbect matter are individuals who were involved in the recent, highly contentious/fractious RfA matter involving me. That's not an accident. Let me direct your attention here.[7] Need any more proof that the article deletion was a bad-faith act? Like a dog with a bone.... Deeceevoice 18:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete but only because I don't see a valid reason for deletion. Frankly, I don't think it is a POV fork of Cool (aesthetic) and I didn't think most of the things in Cool (African philosophy) applied to either cool or african philosophy. The content made more sense in this article, and if we are going to throw it out it should be AFD'd. Kotepho 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The content made more sense in this article, because it had not been selectively gutted the way the former article had been. User: Urthogie stripped the (unsuccessfully) VfD'd article (which later was deleted, anyway) of its structure/basic elements -- and then people subsequently complained they couldn't figure out what the article was about. This one, on the other hand, was simply deleted wholesale. Deeceevoice 18:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, no need to relist on AFD. Guettarda 17:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this article seems to be growing and developing, and apparently there are multiple, verifiable sources. Why don't we give it a chance, and undelete without prejudice against re-AfD-ing in a month if WP:V issues aren't addressed? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, there are no verifiability issues with the deleted text. Deeceevoice 08:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete. What the hell is happening to Wikipedia here? Silensor 19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Deeceevoice. Yet another peculiar deletion/nomination on a subject that might be categorized as having African-American overtones, or falling outside western European/American interests. Monicasdude 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, right, yes, that's it, my racism has been outed. That was, of course, the only reason I deleted this. Thanks for making that so clear. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact the deletion did not follow Wiki procedure, and the history of the precipitous deletions "Cool (African philosophy)" and its wholly nonsensical redirect to "Cool (aesthetic)" -- despite the failed Vfd -- racism/animus is what makes sense. You don't like the conclusions people have reached? Perhaps you should have considered the consequences of your actions before jumping the gun in such an officious, high-handed manner. And then don't continue to abuse your admin privileges in the future. Speaking frankly, IMO, you're just another example of admin who shouldn't be one. And so far, as near as I can tell, Guettarda may be the only admin who's actually called you on your unprincipled behavior. Precisely why Wiki needs a working sanctions process for incompetent and/or malicious admins -- which it currently lacks. Rob Church's conduct in December is another classic example. He de-sysopped himself -- and then immediately was nominated for reinstatement. The system doesn't work, and Wikipedia suffers -- content-wise, community-wise and credibility-wise -- as a result. As an admin, you're held to a higher standard -- and, given your potential for doing harm, you should be. You should be apologizing to the Wikipedia community for violating a trust instead of your present display of sarcasm. Deeceevoice 08:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest, as nicely as possible, that 80% of the problems that you experiance on Wikipedia are because of your race-oriented paradigm, Deeceevoice. I know it's difficult to believe, but race really isn't that important to most people. Barring any actual evidence of Zoe's hood-wearing secret shame, it's best if you stop the personal attacks.
brenneman^{L} 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's because most Wikipedians are white, middle-class westerners — just like me! - FrancisTyers 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What you call my "race-oriented paradigm" is nothing more than a decision to focus primarily on articles/information related to African peoples, because this website is so abysmally deficient in information in that regard. It is no different from people who choose to focus on other issues, like linguistics, or decorative arts, or animation, or music. And justifiably calling Zoe on her conduct is hardly a personal attack. The votes in this DR clearly reflect a consensus that her actions weren't even borderline appropriate. I find it interesting that at every turn on this website I have repeatedly been called a "racist" without justification and blocked for making nonexistent "racist attacks." Yet when I simply say that someone's actions work to perpetuate the systemic, anti-black bias of the project (as in the case of the lockdown of the Giza Sphinx article), I'm all of a sudden accusing the admin of racism (which I clearly did not). Clearly, Zoe's actions have done the same thing: she has deleted, without discussion or justification an article treating a people whose cultures and contributions are abysmally underrepresented in the project. And that is fact. Deeceevoice 07:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• "racism/animus is what makes sense"

That's what you've said above. I suppose that's not directly calling her a racist, but let's not split hairs. You've given one possible reason for her actions. There are a lot of other possible options: Zoe's batshit crazy. Zoe likes to delete things for no reason. Zoe made a mistake. Zoe doesn't respond well to edit wars over questionable material. None of these require her to give a rat's arse about race. As to your attitude: When a whole lot of non-aligned people keep saying the same things to you there is the possibility that they are correct. It's possible to adress systemic bias without viewing everything through the lens of automatic victomhood that unfounded accusations of racism requires. Although I haven't seen you calling editors "cracker" for a while, anyone even marginally aware of your contributions will know that race is important to you. If you continue to deny (as you've done above) your stance on the issue while simultaneously projecting your world view onto the actions of others, you're going to continue to have strife at every turn.

brenneman^{L} 07:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You've taken your comments here wa-aaay beyond the realm of a DR, but I will respond.

I don't know if Zoe's "batshit crazy" or not. Hell, I don't even know what "batshit crazy" even means. I wouldn't make such an assumption that she's mentally unstable, because I don't have any evidence that would point to such a conclusion. On the other hand, her dogged determination to delete a series of articles devoted to African-centered articles -- in a blatant contravention of Wikipedia guidelines -- certainly is enough to raise the issues "racism/animus" -- the "animus" referring to a general trend among certain individuals to ride my a** around this website, taking potshots at everything I write -- many of them contributing not one scintilla of information to a piece, but picking and picking, offering uninformed opinions, snide comments and totally unfounded charges of "racism" directed at me. (Matt Crypto recently blocked me for a week for making a "racist attack" against him, when by any reasonable standard, it was nothing of the kind. And he gets away with pulling that kind of crap because he's an admin.) It was the third Afd/Vfd on "Cool (African philosophy)," with the latest having been concluded at the end of December. And this was the article that was gutted. The people involved in this DR gang up to gut an article and then use the fact that it has no structure as a reason to delete the article. And, no, I'm not a victim, but there is a piling-on phenomenon, a mob mentality to this crowd. Again, it should be obvious to all that it is not mere happenstance that the usual actors in the African cool/aesthetic deletion cases were virtually (if not entirely) all involved in the RfA involving me in December. There is one individual in particular, who has engaged in edit warring around Wikipedia, who has followed me around the website on a personal mission, who inserts snide remarks at every opportunity, who is routinely uncivil, who personifies this kind of conduct.

I am constantly reminded by others of the contentious RfA, as though it's some sort of sword of Damocles hanging over my head. I am expected and admonished all the while to sit quietly, say nothing even remotely untoward when attacked, or insulted, or my words deliberately mischaracterized. I hold my tongue within reason. I deflect barbs with humor, sometimes sarcasm. Sometimes I ignore the crap altogether. But newsflash: I will not be a whipping boy. I will not walk on eggshells when everyone else is riding roughshod. I will not bend over and take it. I will not bow my head and shuffle. I don't do it in the real world, and I'll be gott-damned if I will do it in cyberspace. And for Wikipedia?!!! That's a pretty lopsided a deal with the devil.

You write, "I know it's difficult to believe, but race really isn't that important to most people, and, "...anyone even marginally aware of your contributions will know that race is important to you." You write that as if it's an indictment. In Talk:African aesthetic, you also wrote, "At the risk of getting off topic, I can clarify one thing: I don't even believe in the concept of "race", as it applies to humans. It's a myth. Biology does not support the idea. The world would be far better off if other people didn't believe in it, either. I have a very hard time understanding anyone to whom race is an important concept- this type of thinking splits us apart rather than bringing us together." It's a recurrent theme in your remarks; you seem to think it important, so I will address it here, as you have.

I've been called "racist" lots of times on this website by people who seemingly have little understanding of what the term actually means. Lots of white people seem to consider anyone black who focuses on issues of race and racism in a manner which they find a little too direct for their sensibilities/comfort level somehow automatically racist. I find that amusing. I will reproduce here my response to your comment in talk and leave it at that:

I just read the rest of your [Friday's] comment. You say you "have a very hard time understanding anyone to whom race is an important concept...." That's too bad because, like it or not, the social, political and economic implications of race as a construct have far-reaching pervasive -- and very often insidious -- impacts upon much of the world. As a non-black, you may be able to discount the notion out of hand. You have the luxury of walking out your door every day and not thinking about the color of your skin. Precious few black people who live "in the belly of the beast" can say that. In fact, I don't personally know a single one. It's not a burden; it's a responsibility. You see, it's rather difficult to convince someone with a gun pointed at their skull to ignore it because it doesn't exist. And pardon us if we look at you like you're a stark, raving lunatic. Try telling that to the Scottsboro Boys, young Till, or James Byrd, W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King (were they still walking and moving among us) -- or Nelson Mandela. Perhaps it's your kind of thinking that splits us apart.

Deeceevoice 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, since Zoe's edit history provides virtually no evidence to support any of the alternative explantions, it's hard to see how they're relevant. Many of those supposedly "non-aligned" criticisms of Deeceevoice echo the cleaned-up, well-dressed, carefully disguised modes of racist discourse that have replaced traditional Anglo-American race-baiting, but the underlying meanings are no less hateful and no less racist, even though some speakers do not understand (or wilfully ignore) the real connotations of their comments. Wikipedia, and Wikipedians, regularly trivialize racist behavior; and Wikipedia manifests an extraordinary structural bias on both the central on peripheral issues, with bizarre and completely undocumented comments like this one constituting the norm rather than the exception: Contrary to popular belief worldwide, racism in America is by no means restricted to Caucasians. In fact, most surveys have shown that African Americans have a higher percentage of admitted racists than any other ethnic group in the nation. (from Racism). At best, Wikipedia manifests a studied, if not determined, pattern of insensitivity, nowhere better displayed, I suspect, than in the quite ill-advised way that Dixie was displayed as the article of the day, with a racist caricature prominently displayed on the main page and the explanatory material effectively buried, not visible on the opening screen in most common display modes.

It's not an accident that Wikipedia devotes more editorial space to Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues than to the entire careers of African-American writers like Ralph Ellison, Samuel R. Delany, Richard Wright, Ishmael Reed, or even James Baldwin. There are 138 entries in African_American_writers, as compared to 700-odd in Adult_models (and 500+ in American_porn_stars), 400+ in the 18 different categories of Pokemon characters, 196 entries in Apple_II_games, and 165 entries in American_heavy_metal_musical_groups. Jack Thompson takes up much more space than Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Amalya Kearse combined; the tempest in a teapot Kelo case, a favorite of rightist ideologues, gets much more attention than Brown v. Board of Education. And the Wikipedia "community" response is to hound editors like Deeceevoice who point out such unacceptable phenomena, to condone deliberate provocations of such editors while actively censoring their honestly felt responses for supposed contraventions of Wikipedia's social norms that are excused when committed by editors with different political sensibilities. In most other settings, an organization which treated its members like Wikipedia could easily be seen as a violation of civil rights laws, resulting in substantial sanctions and overwhelmingly unfavorable public attention. That would be more healthy, in the long run, for Wikipedia than the festering bias that so many users disregard, too often even approve, right now. Monicasdude 15:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Disparaging someone because of their race is racism, and you have done it to me on Wikipedia, and likely off it as well. You are not being asked to "bend over and take it". You are being asked to follow our policies, just like everyone else. When you don't, there are consequences, such as being put on probation by the Arbitration Committee. These consequences are not acts of racism. It may, of course, be easier for you to think of them that way, as the alternative explanation may be more uncomfortable for you to contemplate. — Matt Crypto 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Crypto, I'm confident that any reasonable, objective person who examines your assertion that my words were somehow a "racist attack" will find it as flimsy/groundless as I do. Oh, there's that sword again. Guess I'd better duck! You don't get it, do you? You can ban me for life from the website. To quote mari evans: "Let uh revolution come. Cain't be like nuthin' I done already seen." I'm still not taking crap. I'm still not shuffling. *x* Deeceevoice 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't get it. I don't want to ban you for life. I want to you help us write an encyclopedia -- an encyclopedia that is not skewed towards certain ethnicities. I dunno, maybe you want to do the same. Simultaneously, I want you to avoid personal attacks and incivility -- which happens to be the policy around here. That's nothing to do with "taking crap", or "shuffling", or whatever it is you're saying. It's a basic level of courtesy and professionalism (or whatever the equivalent is for non-professionals...) However, if you equate "not taking crap" with rudeness and incivility, then the outcome is inevitable: your editing here will be curtailed by blocks and bans. — Matt Crypto 15:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. I wrote what I wrote. Period. Deeceevoice 15:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Move to userspace, expand and relist MikeHobday 08:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and consider a move to African aesthetics--Urthogie 09:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete; agreeing with Deeceevoice is not something that comes very naturally to me, but it doesn't seem like any proper process was ever followed in the deletion of this article. This is spillover from a series of edit wars over "Cool" and related articles, but none of those ever reached consensus to delete or merge either, and this particular article has never gone through an AfD or given a chance to develop or not naturally. *Dan T.* 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy: the article is just starting out, and finishing it there before moving it to article space is not a bad idea. Either way, there's no grounds for a deletion here. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

SSOAR

• Request placed in header
• Special:Undelete/SSOAR (admin only)

The page titled 'SSOAR' was deleted. I believe it should not be because it is neutral, and there is original research because no previous research has been done. I did that page as part of a school research project on animal rights in Tacoma. So I request that this page be undeleted. Thank you. Scorpio398 08:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Brian, <email address removed> / 18 April 2006

• Endorse deletion - it may be the only animal rights group operated in South Puget Sound, but South Puget Sound is not so big as to make its sole animal rights group encyclopaedically notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per JzG, who was exactly on point. Xoloz 17:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per above, and Wikipedia is not a place where original research should be conducted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• A bit cautious, but I will Endorse the deletion. The deletion was a speedy one as an A7 candidate, and with 200 members I would have prod-ed or AFDed it if I had spotted the article myself. But there is no really good assertion of notability here (as JzG pointed out) and media coverage is almost nonexistant, so I think it was within the bounds of A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Angry Aryans

One of most notable White Pride bands in America, still deleted and with very few votes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka Jačov (talk • contribs)

• Undelete - per above. Luka Jačov 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I hate the non-notable argument in cases like this... --GTubio 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as original nominator. Back then, they had no Allmusic profile and were not on Amazon. Now, they have no Allmusic profile and are not on Amazon. Are they one of the most notable white pride bands? Says who? And of they are, but still remain unknown by AMG and Amazon, perhaps that just means that white pride music is a subgenre sufficiently trivial that even the most notable fail to rise to the level of WP:NMG. Just zis Guy you know? 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, closed properly, participation was sufficient, no new evidence presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, nothing has changed.  RasputinAXP  c 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Quite a few people listen to them according to http://www.last.fm/music/Angry+Aryans. estavisti 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. About 1000 downloads of free ringtones. I don't think that establishes much at all. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I consider, "This white pride band is encyclopedic" to be a pretty extraordinary claim. Xoloz 17:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. The JPS 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• RelistUndelete lots of news sources seem to think that they are promiment enough to represent the genre, and the genre is notable enough to write articles about. See Telegraph ABC News Featured in that VH1 special on this genre Does Canada count as an international tour? Now Toronto Guardian Unlimited Anti-Defamation League VH1 Special. Two albums on Resistance Records and one on Tri-State Terror (actually, it seems that Racially Motivated Violence was released on both labels). I see no reason why this band needs to be held to a higher standard just because it is distasteful. Is this another rec.music.white-power vote? Kotepho 19:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Kotepho, all of those news sources you linked above mention this band in an off-hand manner in lists of other such bands. And the Canada appearance was not a tour, it was an appearance at a festival in Toronto with five other bands. How does that establish that they represent the genre more than any other such band? I don't see sufficient grounds here to reconsider this deletion. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The newspapers seem to think that they represent the genre well, otherwise they would not have used them as examples. I don't really think that the Canadian concert really represents an international tour, but it is ill defined. I just think that an international tour is ill-defined. A group could play dates in a few European countries easily and qualify while a band that did not cover much of America might not. Kotepho 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • In each case, Angry Aryans are just one of several bands listed as representative of the genre. The claim has been made that they are one of most notable White Pride bands in America. However, so far no one has produced a review or article on this band that does anything more than mention them in a list. I would say that they are nowhere near as notable as Prussian Blue. When Angry Aryans has gotten the kind of coverage that Prussion Blue has, come back. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I have no idea if they are the most notable white pride band, nor did I make that claim. I only claim that they have been used to represent the genre. The Detroit News even says "We do just happen to live...where prominent skinhead bands (the Angry Aryans) roam..." (Michigan's newest export not something to be proud of: hate; October 21, 1999; Laura Benman). Even though they are used in a list, that list is usually short (2-5). Resistance Records alone has at least 8 bands, so those making the lists are being selective.
          • If they are so notable, why has no one been able to point to a review of their work, or an article that talks about them, other than simply including them in a list with other white power bands. They simply are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
            • You never seem to actually respond to any of my comments and constantly argue red herrings. You say that nothing I have pointed to mentions them in anything more than a list, and I have given multiple examples (see VH1 special that interviews them, my quote from The Detroit News, the interview by Resistance magazine). I'll even throw more things on the pile that you will ignore. The fourth issue of Rock Against Communism includes an interview with them, too bad it is Polish[8]. Bizarre magainze likes their album cover, 10/10! [9] Interview from Resistance Magazine, One Two interviews from Condemned Magazine Kotepho 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Your argument that they should be required to have the same amount of media coverage as Prussian Blue is nonsensical. Should we delete The Who because they do not have as much coverage as The Beatles? The only yardstick that applies is WP:BAND. Even if you do not agree on the media aspect, they do have two albums released on a notable record label and they were featured in the VH1 special. Kotepho 16:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"...largest neo-Nazi white power record label in America: Resistance Records." Reistance Records is owned by William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance. `...National Alliance, called by the Anti-Defamation League, "the single most dangerous hate group in the country."` "Resistance could sell more than 60,000 CDs this year, and gross more than $1 million by next year." (SOUNDS OF HATE RESISTANCE RECORDS LOCAL NEO-NAZI USES ROCK TO SPEW RACIST DOCTRINE, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), March 5, 2000, CLINT O'CONNOR)

The band has been interviewed by Resistance Magazine (Rights advocates say supremacists' music fuels biases,The Washington Times,August 7, 2000,Author: Brad Knickerbocker), so I'm sure you can cite some things from that aswell.

IMHO, this clearly meets WP:NMG under a handful of categories and I haven't even finished looking through the 31 hits in America's Newspapers for "Angry Aryans". The AFD may be valid, but that doesn't mean it came to the correct result. Kotepho 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per nomination and especially GTubio. 1652186 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete but relist this should go through AfD. JoshuaZ 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It did, back in November. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes I know. My phrasing was poor, I meant it should go through AfD with the new info. JoshuaZ 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I stated my opinion on the notability argument in my response to Kotepho above. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, sufficiently notable. Rhobite 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist with notability information presented. Deserves a fairer shake. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but do not prohibit recreation, policy was followed here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete seems notorious enough.  Grue  17:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until there are articles in legitimate media focusing on them rather than simply mentioning them (or until they achieve increased notability some other way).-Polotet 21:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dis-Connection

ADMIN NOTE: It has been brought to my attention that there has been a case of vote solicitation by Luka. If I suspect any more ballot stuffing, I will close this deletion review and leave the article deleted. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dis-Connection

• Deleted with 13D and 11K. Notable web-comic still deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luka Jačov (talk • contribs) .
• Undelete - per above. Luka Jačov 08:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with the closer's decision to close this as a delete. Many of the keepers didn't seem to understand Wikipedia policy. Fetofs ^Hello! 12:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --GTubio 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per nomination on the AfD: article was written almost entirely by the comic's creator, has only been online 2 months, Alexa rank is of the order of 2 million, around 350 Googles, "keep" votes were solicited. Above assertion that this is a "notable" webcomic appears to lack any provable basis in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG, though more explanation by the closing admin would've been good to avoid this.  RasputinAXP  c 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Evidence was presented within debate of attempted "new user vote-stacking." Under that circumstance, admin was empowered by discretion to discount suspicious opinions, of which several "keep votes" without explanation are clear examples. As Rasputin says, a more thorough explanation from closer would have helped here. Xoloz 17:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete ---serbiana - talk 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, policy was followed here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no reason given for undeletion, AfD looks in order. Mike _{(T C)} 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Appears to have been an in process deletion and no reason given to undelete. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (keep deleted); the decision by the closing administrator was correct. - Liberatore(T) 12:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigave National Association

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigave National Association I feel that this article was wrongly deleted, because, not only was the original deletion vote withdrawn, but a source was found for the information, a source which also saved another article from deletion. I would like the deletion vote to be reconsidered. Thank you Laceymichelle 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse the nomination for reconsideration. Examination of the deletion vote will show that a small group of editors had "taken against" both articles from the outset (basing their objection on lack of independent verification). When one of the two articles was clearly verified, their tactic was to press for the deletion of the other (this one), as (apparently) a precursor to redeleting the first, verified, one, as beiong merely an adjunct to a deleted article. This needs to be independently reviewed, and note taken of the simple sheep-votes which will come in in favour of continuted deletion, on behalf of the vested interests. No vote, so as not to unbalance the scales. -- Simon Cursitor 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If you look at the times of postings in the two AfD's, you will find that the above description bears no resemblance to actual events. At 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC), in the Tuatafa Hori AfD, LaceyMichelle claimed she had a book to back her claim. (This was six hours after the last vote in the Sigave National Association AfD.) There was some back and forth between her and Mak in trying to verify the existence and title of the book. As for the geocities link, no one ever gave it any weight to begin with, as geocities does not meet any reliable source criteria. The claim of a "tactic" when "one of the articles was clearly verified" is totally false. What verification there was (if you consider that book to be verification) occurred after all votes had been already made. Fan1967 19:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• What source? The onle source discussed in the AfD was a Geocities site, and the article as deleted cited no sources at all. Just zis Guy you know? 13:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Myspace is not a reliable source, and the article was a hoax. A Google search for Tuatafa Hori turns up both wiki articles and a cache from Myspace where the name "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave" was used by a 15-year-old myspace user, currently titled Spacey. This is matched by checking the timestamp on the Google cache: "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave. 3/28/2006 8:28 PM hey miss merlie ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ..." on the accompanying myspace entry. The article was never verified by a reliable source. WP:NOT for things made up in a Florida school one day.  RasputinAXP  c 14:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted At the least, this has no reliable source at all; at worst, it's a hoax. Xoloz 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I find it unlikely that the book Laceymichelle cited, The changing cultures of Oceanic peoples during the nineteenth century has any verifiable information about a modern-day princess; I find it less likely that Laceymichelle bought this book at a used book sale at her local library when it was originally published in France in 1957 and only 2 academic libraries in the world have a copy.Thatcher131 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted, as per the analysis made above. Even if there were new sources found, unless they pass the reliable source test, they aren't information that would significantly affect the outcome of an AfD. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1313 Mockingbird Lane

The debate below has been copied from my user talk page (see discussion at User talk:Hamilton Styden#1313 Mockingbird Lane -- Rick Block (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)) and seems to have stalled. I read the requirements regarding notability and by those specific guidelines, the article I was submitting,although not entirely completed, contains qualifications for notablility under several sections of the music guidlines although only one is needed for notability.It is my understanding that I am now forever prevented from rewriting this article. I would like to submit this for undeletion. Thank you

Hamilton Styden 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, the artistdirect and allmusic pages are identical, and neither one mentions a single album, apparently they only had two singles and appeared on compilation discs for a record company, Cacophone Records, which doesn't even have a website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for now. My Styden, your understanding is incorrect: while you should not repost the article, you are welcome to work on a draft copy in your userspace, improving it with evidence of the band's notability. You may ask in the "content review" section to have any admin userfy a copy of the old text for you. Xoloz 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The information about the band regarding amount and type of official releases provided by Zoe above is incorrect. The All Music Guide is incomplete. As I clearly have written in my article, the bands discography which contains no less than 7 singles,2 four song ep's and two full length releases on well known indie garage labels (1 full length lp "Have Hearse Will Travel" Sundazed 1990) and (Trikaidekaphobia full length CD Midnight Records 1993) are chronicled in the book "The Knights of Fuzz" By Timothy Gassen ISBN # 1-89855-02-05. This is a valuable guide to the genre of garage rock and contains many of the bands current listed on Wikipedia in that catagory.

On the subject of "notable bands", there currently is a band "Mockingbird Lane" listed on Wikipedia with non notable credentials who clearly don't have a functioning website(although they provided a non functional link) and make dubious non verifyable claims to a connection with Steven King. Additionally, they certainly don't have two full length indie releases and their current link only appears to go to an Ebay store.Although I have been encouraged by others to post deletions on such pages, I am not personally interested in tearing down others, I only wish to create an article under the guidelines as I have read and understood them regarding notability. Hamilton Styden 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A more complete discography is available @ ((http://www.geocities.com/theecaveman/1313mockingbirdlane/1313MOCKINGBIRDLANE.htm))

Hamilton Styden 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fred Moss

This article shouldn't have been deleted, as it was notable (and certainly not speedy delete non-notable!). I was also going to continue adding to it over the next couple of days. 83.146.55.85 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was the third admin to delete it, and in this case, protect it. There is no claim of notability, and sadly, being a murder victim is not inherrantly notable, regardless of modest media coverage. As an aside, the page began to turn into an attack on the subjects, through an unencyclopedic image and a blatantly vandalistic ogg. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's have a proper debate on whether it was notable then, not a speedy delete; also note that Christopher Nudds has been implicated in the murder of a retired colnel: this case got a hell of a lot of publicity in the uk (but bear in mind so did that of Fred Moss, and there's plenty of much less notable murder victims here. 83.146.55.85 18:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. The other two deletions hardly compare to what was deleted the third time! 83.146.55.85 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD, where I will vote for deletion. I don't think anything will be lost by demonstrating the community consensus to delete this article. David | Talk 20:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ooooooh, I've actually met you in real life, you're a decent enough bloke. 83.146.55.85 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that is ever so slightly intimidating - care to give me a clue as to who you are? ;-) David | Talk 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry... although if you think about people interested in traveller's rights that were at catz - there can't be that many of us ;) 83.146.55.85 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This whole mess has been filled with inappropriateness. The image was inappropriate for wikipedia. The spoken word file had an appalling ending. An article about a recent murder and conviction is too much of a liability if POV and immature sound files are uploaded. If we keep ths article, then it should be semi-protected, with additions discussed on the talk page. I would be more than happy to add genuine, verifiable information to the article suggested by an IP. However, we must not allow atrocities like that ogg file. The JPS 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reviewing the text on the various deleted versions, I can find no claim or evidence that this person met the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies either before or because of his death. To me, this looks like a valid use of speedy-deletion criterion A7 even before worrying about the recurring vandalism that this page seemed to attract. I endorse the speedy-deletion but will reconsider that decision if credible evidence can be presented here that this article would have even a slight chance of surviving a regular AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• To me the media coverage seems to be a claim of notability. It might not survive an AFD, but likely deserves a chance. So, I think if an attack-free version exists, it should be undeleted, semi-protected, and AFD'd. If not, maybe ask somebody to work up a version in user space, to show they're serious about making a real article. -Rob 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be willing to do that (as gypsy eyes), but only as a very last resort, I still think the article should go up for AFD, if not fully. 83.146.55.85 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I don't know whether this was a big deal or not in the Cambridge area, but I'd be willing to see its notability thrashed out on the talk page or on AFD. There were some nasty contributions to versions of the article, but Gypsy Eyes seems to be adding actual useful information. FreplySpang (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm prepared to support undelete and list on AfD, but this does appear to have been created specifically to attack Nudds for some unaccountable reason. BBC News shows that the case happened, but not that it is especially notable (I live in England and certainly don't recall hearing of it). The article subject was a traveller engaged in hare coursing, pretty much a classic case of WP:HOLE. Keep dleete dis also valid as I think that would be the outcome of any AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't remember Fred, surely you remember the unexplained murder of colnel on his doorstep around a year and a half ago? Nudds is 'suspected' of 'being involved' in that too... 83.146.55.85 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete this please let it go to articles for deletion if you want Yuckfoo 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: no need to run this through AfD where it will be deleted once again. --Hetar 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan

This article was originally deleted (rightfully) for being a poorly-written and PoV-infested half-stub. Due to the original author's lack of understanding regarding Wikipedia's editing procedure, it was recreated, and the page is now blocked for good. I have (as part of an agreement on another page), helped the author write a significantly better article that I hope to replace the article with. The new article may be found at: User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin/Sinagogue of Satan. Essentially, I am hoping the article to be undeleted such that it can be replaced with a better article. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not overturn AfD, keep deleted. This is indeed well-written and NPOV to a certain extent (it still reproduces some beliefs as fact, e.g. "even though atheism does not have a God, it still is a belief"), but unfortunately it's also bereft of any assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Nice article, but no evidence of notability yet. Do feel free to add any valid evidence to the draft, and return here then. Xoloz 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted with no prejudice against recreating if evidence of notability is given. JoshuaZ 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. -article real seems ok now. Luka Jačov 11:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. We look for references, not notability. --GTubio 13:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete seems OK now. --estavisti 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Jovanvb 14:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We look for references and notability, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This gets 418 Google hits, which is negligible. Who is crearting this new, good article? Is User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin connected in any way with the founder of this so-called religion, one Rev. Michael S. Margolin? The names do appear on the surface to be somewhat similar. Where are the reliable sources from which we can verify the neutrality of this article? Where is it described in secondary sources? There is a reason we require an element of notability, and it is that those people, groups or concepts which are not notable, lack sufficient coverage to allow us to ensure that the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia are followed in respect of those subjects. Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted self-promotion article on a micro-faith written by its inventor, not even an assertion of notability (no members mentioned aside from the Rev who created it), and as for references? the only one given is the group's own website. --Doc ^ask? 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As some questions have arisen, I will strive to answer them. Yes, the User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin is the founder of the religion: one reason that his original was deleted. The current version that is posted in his userspace was based on an entry that he showed me on another site: I modified it to make it far more NPOV and expand a bit upon it. I myself am in no way associated with the Sinagogue of Satan. I will make no claim in its notability (as one reason I relegated it to the lower regions of the Satanism article was its lack of notability compared to the main Satanic groups), but it should be noted that a Satanic organization, due to their somewhat taboo and underground nature, is likely to have significantly less of an Internet presence than most other groups. And yes, I realize that this does not help solve WP:V. If it helps, the book Think You're the Only One? by Seth Brown does devote a spread to the organization, though whether this provides notability or not is certainly questionable. I also feel it should be noted that I am bringing this request on the behalf of User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin and an agreement we made on Satanism, and that if you feel anything towards me to not let it factor in with your judgement. Thanks. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep Deleted - or, if possible, go back in time and keep from being created in the first place. This has no place here: unverifiable, and if so, utterly non-notable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. How is this not verifiable? Silensor 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Um... there is no source? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted per WP:V.-Polotet 21:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

15 April 2006

Steve Reich (Army)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Reich (Army)

This article was created after Reich died in a plane crash in Afghanistan. It was deleted after an AfD vote, but I'd like to see this reviewed. When tested against WP:BIO, Reich played at the highest levels of amateur sport, received large national media attention in the US (USA Today, ESPN.com, Connecticut Governor) and is notable for the events described on List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan under June 28. I've had a temporary copy of the article here since last July. Does this article warrant inclusion? Harro5 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the deleted article and the evidence presented here, I do not believe that Major Reich meets the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. As a veteran, I mourn his death in Afghanistan but find no evidence that his death is significantly different than the thousands of other casualties in wars throughout history. I can find no evidence that his career was especially noteworthy, though he does appear to have been competent and respected in his profession. Looking at the evidence available about his sport career, I do not agree that it meets the standards for inclusion either. Endorse closure. Wikipedia is not a memorial. (Disclosure: I participated in the first deletion discussion.) Rossami (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - wot Rossami said. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. Quite sad, but I'm sure many Majors have had successful careers outside the military. Nothing in this biography suggests encyclopedic notability. Xoloz 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

14 April 2006

Schism Tracker

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schism Tracker

The article about the only Impulse Tracker based tracker which is nearly every day updated and still under development has been deleted twice.

I am a Schism Tracker user and ocasional tester. I have reported to the authors that this excellent tracker is being banned under wikipedia. It has a very good user and fan base, it is included under Debian distributions, it's totally open source and it has active forums. Also, it's now the only MS Windows Impulse Tracker Clone, so there are not reasons for deleting this entry. Also, it's totally multi-platform (Linux, MAC OSX, Morphos, Windows, BSD) and opened to every people who wants to help the development (now I am trying to port it to Yellowtab Zeta). You say at Deletion Log that "there no evidence of innovation". Have you used it? It has too much features that Impulse Tracker and current developper is adding new and modern features to it. You can't talk about a software if haven't used it.

Watch http://nimh.org/schism or the forums http://rigelseven.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/storlek/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=schism.

Also, this entry on Wikipedia is a real gate to new users, as I knew schism tracker thanks to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is culture, is not censorship. So because of that, this great tracker, must be here. xenon_soft 21:32, 14 April 2006 (GMT +1)

• Endorse original deletion (and hence my own subsequent speedy). <1000 ghits, plus - as xenon_soft says - it is nearly every day updated and still under development, and this entry on Wikipedia is a real gate to new users - WP:NOT an advertising medium. Just zis Guy you know? 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Knowledge is not advertising. It's like you say that Wikipedia is a way of advertisement of AC/DC, Metallica because some people can know this groups here. Having <1000 hits it's not a real or objetive reason for deletion, as simply being open source or being included in Debian distribution a piece of software can be included here. Also, it's very related to IMPULSE TRACKER and yes, it you look CVS web it's constantly under development. This is simply a way of censorship and a limitation of knowledge (it's totally related to more that one entry here) and culture. Finally it follows totally this WIKIPEDIA RULE (as you know it must follow ANY of the rules in WP:SOFTWARE): "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Fedora Core or Debian, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer" xenon_soft 11:20, 15 April 2006 (GMT +1)

• Nope. The difference is, readers have already heard of AC/DC and Metallica. Here, you say the article is a "gate to new users" - which I don't dispute at all. And that is one of the things Wikipedia is not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per JzG.-Polotet 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Notable per WP:SOFTWARE, actively developed, and above all: the only tracker available for modern operating systems (and also the only open-source tracker) that decently replicates the Scream Tracker / Impulse Tracker -style user interface. There aren't even many programs of this kind under development, so I really can't see the point in the deletion. Viznut 12:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per being one of a kind. Alternatively add as section to Impulse Tracker. // Gargaj 15:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China

Out of process deletion and renaming to Category:Subdivisons of the Republic of China (misspelled) by Changlc (talk · contribs).

1. The main article for this category is Political divisions of the Republic of China.
2. The series template ({{ROC divisions levels}}) is entitled "This article is part of the series: Political divisions of the Republic of China (Taiwan)".
3. The category title should match.

This was done at the urging of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) (on Talk:Changlc, out of view of the rest of us) during Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4. Conradi was the instigator of many such out-of-process deletions over the past year. It was extremely inappropriate for administrator Changlc to make this change without consensus, and during the debate.

--William Allen Simpson 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and reinstate original Neither side in this discussion should pursue aggressive standardizing until a consensus guideline is achieved. In consideration of the series template name, the earlier title is more appropriate, and should remain until this resolved. Xoloz 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, names of categories should not be unilaterally changed without discussion when the name change might be controversial.-Polotet 22:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 April

1. Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal Closure as redirect endorsed unanimously. 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. List of films about phantom or sentient animals Closure endorsed unanimously/kept deleted. 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Feminists Against Censorship Speedily (and unanimously) overturned and restored. 09:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Waldo's wallpaper Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth Deletion closure endorsed. 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Template:Kosovo-geo-stub Deletion closure endorsed. 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
7. HAI2U Deletion closure endorsed; no consensus on redirect created during DRV debate - take to RfD if there are objections. 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Anabasii restored [10] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[11] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [12] 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Jeniferever Deletion endorsed; however, valid recreation permitted during debate. 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Dominionist political parties Closure endorsed, kept deleted. [13] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [14] 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Mindscript - kept deleted. I don't know whether I should consider User:212.209.39.154's blanking of the undeletion notice and discussion as a withdrawal of the request to undelete, or as vandalism; but the article had no chance to be undeleted anyway. See [15]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [16] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [17] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [18] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [19] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [20] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [21] 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
21. UAAP Football Champions contested PROD speedy restored, listed at AfD. 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Suzy Sticks, history and content userfied [22] 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
23. List of themed timelines AfD, debate reopened (without prejudice) by original closer. 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
24. SSOAR, deletion endorsed unanimously. 01:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Sigave National Association, kept deleted. [23] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [24] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[25] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[26] 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China Deletion overturned. Noted at WP:CFD. 10:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
30. William Hamlet Hunt Deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI, Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: Miami and Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: New York deletion endorsed and noted at WP:CFD. Diff. 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Gateware. Deletion endorsed. Diff. 15:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Tuatafa Hori Overturned, deleted. Diff. 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
34. PIGUI Deletion overturned, article reinstated. Diff. 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
35. List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years Deletion overturned, recreated. Diff. 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Category:Subdivisions by country to Category:Administrative divisions by country relisted at WP:CFD on April 15. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT Userfied. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Switchtrack Alley Deletion endorsed, a consensus against userfication also exists. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Daniel Brandt Third and fourth afd closures endorsed, article kept. Dif for discussion here. 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Harry's Place Mistaken nomination. Nominator was confused about how to contest the tagging of the page as a speedy. Discussion moved to the article's Talk page. 12:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Template: Future tvshow Speedy undeleted as contested PROD. 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
42. SFEDI Deletion overturned, list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFEDI. [27] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [28] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [29] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [30] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [31] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [32] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [33] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [34] 04:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
51. William T. Bielby, mistaken nomination now resolved. 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Slam (band), speedy kept; lister thought {{oldafdfull}} implied article was being renominated for deletion. [35] 6:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
53. List of news aggregators, kept deleted, protected. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Joshua Wolf, kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Gigi Stone, no consensus to restore. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
56. John Law (artistic pioneer), kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
57. George Goble, made redirect. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Top Fourteen, delete closure endorsed (speedily so, after sockpuppet problems.) 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Talk:Orders of magnitude (new chains)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Orders of magnitude (chains), Talk:Orders of magnitude (chain page names), Talk:Orders of magnitude (template)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/template and Talk:Orders of magnitude (converter), speedily restored and moved to Talk:Order of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chain page names, Talk:Order of magnitude/template and Talk:Order of magnitude/converter, respectively. [36] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [37] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [38] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [39], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [40] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [41] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [42] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [43] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [44] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [45] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [46] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [47] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [48] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [49] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [50] 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, deletion reversed, listed on AFD. 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Talk:Userboxes, no consensus to restore deleted versions. 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Gilles Trehin/Gilles Tréhin, kept deleted; no consensus to restore. New discussions on possible future article at Talk:Gilles Trehin [51]15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Robert "Knox" Benfer, kept deleted. Page protected. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Bonez, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
80. 50 Bands To See Before You Die, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin1 - unanimously kept deleted. 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
82. James H. Fetzer, original speedy deletion of article upheld, recreated redirect left in place. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
83. List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Portuguese Discovery of Australia, delisted early—inappropriate for deletion review, as page version was never deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Doorknob (game), deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
86. Betty chan, kept deleted. Copy of article reposted on talk page moved to User:Snob/Betty Chan; talk page deleted per CSD G8.14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
87. Young Writers Society, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
88. Mike Murdock, deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
89. David R. Smith, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
90. Stir, deltetion overturned, relisted on AFD where there was a consensus to keep. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
91. California State Route 85, status quo maintained. 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
92. Control Monger, restored, relisted for AFD. 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
93. MPOVNSE, kept deleted. 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
94. Omar Q Beckins, kept deleted. 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
95. The Go, deletion overturned. 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
96. John Fullerton, deletion endorsed. 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
97. Imaginary antecedent kept deleted; sadly (and very surprisingly) appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia:No original research; completely unreferenced. 14:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
98. Template:People_stub restored, unprotected, listed for consideration on WP:SFD. [52] 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
99. Myg0t overturned and undeleted. 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
100. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
101. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
102. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
103. Category:Roman Catholic actors, speedy deletion reversed; relisted for further consideration at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31#Category:Roman_Catholic_actors. March 31 2006

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

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

Content review

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

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

• If it's at all possible, I'd like to see the deleted content on Switchtrack Alley so that I can userfy it and improve it there before resubmitting it as an article.Nathanfk13 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  This is already under discussion below. Please move your request down there. We try not to fragment discussions. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• The reason I put this here was that a user in that discussion referred me to up here. If there is a more appropriate place for it, I can say it again there, I guess.Nathanfk13 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• 16:09, 3 April 2006 Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", providing the edit summary: (complete slander). Now, obviously, his claim is false; one could argue that it's libel, but it's certainly not slander! But that's just a technicality, and I don't mean to engage in Wikilawyering, other than for comic effect; Zanimum just doesn't know the meaning of the word 'slander'. Seriously, Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", apparently because he felt it was libelous. However, he deleted a large amount of sourced, verifiable content as well, and I also dispute that it was libelous (I would opine that speedy deletion, which seems to be what occured, is appropriate in actual cases of libel.) If someone could restore, and/or make available to me the deleted version (this?), so we can come to some amicable agreement as to what is appropriate for the article, (and slander :) ) that would be appreciated. In addition, opinions as to what in the deleted article might have been considered libelous, given the verifiable sources, would be appreciated as well. There were efforts to balance the article - inclusion of positive and negative statements; admittedly, it could be less disparaging, and I'll work more on that. I would like to work toward restoring sourced claims while respecting NPOV and avoiding libelous statements. Efforts to resolve the issue have failed - Zanimum has been unresponsive to posts to the page and Talk:Upfront_Rewards. Prior to the deletion, I had done research to find further sources to back up other claims I added and would like to add, and was the only editor to make any effort to reconcile views (IIRC). I'm happy to hash this all out on the :talk page prior to edits of the article. Elvey 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As requested, I have reviewed the deleted content. While it probably did not qualify for any of the narrow speedy-deletion criteria, I decline to undelete it. I concur with Zanimum's core assessment that the deleted content was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If an article on this topic is appropriate, it will be better to start the article from scratch. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not really what I (intended to) request but thanks for your time. The content of the deleted article is what I asked for. I do have a valid email address registered, for [53].

Would an admin please make it available?

Hello, Could somebody please help userfy a copy of the old text that I wrote on 1313 Mockingbird Lane that was deleted ? I am not sure how to work and keep a draft on my user page. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hamilton Styden 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• Please restore for the current debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 15#Subdivisions to appropriate divisions:
  • Category:Political divisions of the United States and its Talk. This was apparently deleted last year without going through the usual CfR process, and the history would be useful in the current CfR debate. --William Allen Simpson 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:Administrative divisions of South Korea and its Talk. As above. --William Allen Simpson 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• On April 3 I moved Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism. Another user moved the page back to its original title and the talk page was "lost." I have been repeatedly harassed since then. Please re-add the original talk to Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Thanks. KI 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Charities with ties to terrorism has never existed and Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism has its history complete. What exactly are you missing? -Splash^talk 23:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Other

These are not, strictly speaking, history only undeletions, and they have not been done.

• Wikipedia:articles for deletion/Concepts in Atlas Shrugged and
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology in Atlas Shrugged were both closed as

  transwiki to Wikibooks:Atlas Shrugged and delete.

In both case I support the decision; but the deletion has been done and the transwikiing appears not to have been. Since one reason for the proposal was to preserve the page history as far as possible, I prefer not to cut and paste. Please finish this. Septentrionalis 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 May 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 16}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

21 April 2006

SilentHeroes

See AfD debate here

This page was deleted even though the new page was a complete new setup and was NOT the orinal one brought back. If a page is deleted, how can ever a proper page be added at that address if admins keeps deleting and protecting the new, proper, page?

The page contained a full range of info, screenshots and misc about the mod SilentHeroes. Several other mods, with much worse pages, are being keeped, but this one is continiusly attacked. It's not enough one editor wrote 'Death to Sweden' as the original Delete-message? Very bad taste and wikipedia should be above this kind of behavior.Zarkow 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, policy was followed here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, policy wasn't followed. I'm sorry, but you are confused, and I understand why. The page above is refering to the OLD page, NOT the NEW page. They are COMPLETELY different. Is there any rules against adding new pages with valuable content after a (in editors taste) a lacking page was deleted? If so, how can ever a page be added (submitted) after a deletion? Zarkow 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

20 April 2006

Cool (African philosophy)

The AFD (found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cool (African philosophy)) was closed by Mailer Diablo as "uhhhhh...no consensus". After reviewing the discussion, I would have closed this as a delete (with a slight merge into Cool (aesthetic)), as the 19 editors who actually cited Wikipedia rules (it's an acknowledged POV fork, it's basically unverified, it's original research) agreed, with the reasons to keep consisting of 2 unfounded and rude speedy keep votes accusing the nominator of bad faith (no actual reason to keep the article), and 4 other fairly unconvincing keep votes (in order: creator of the article, someone who doesn't really get WP:NOR or WP:V, one with no actual reason to keep (just an attempt to defend the two who voted speedy keep), and one that states "worthy of an article", but doesn't say why). Oh, and a joke vote from an anon that says "Such a delightful example of very impressive and quite meaningless gobbledegook should not be lost to mankind".

I would have deleted this, and I think it really should have been closed as such. I'd like to suggest overturn the original 'no consensus' decision and delete. Proto||type 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Can I suggest it's pointless running this debate separately from the below debate about African Aesthetic? David | Talk 12:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Am I being dim or isn't this a different article that POV forked its way from the one you mentioned? Proto||type 12:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Same article, different article, merged article or whatever, it's essentially the same debate. David | Talk 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I believe it's useful to discuss this Afd closure, here. It's related, but really a seperate issue. I personally don't agree with closing it as a "no consensus"- consensus was clear that this should not be a seperate article. However, as one involved in the discussion, I realize I'm not neutral on this issue. I'd like people's inputs on whether there is something there other than a "no consensus". Friday (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• PS. My "vote" is overturn and redirect or (less good) delete. Friday (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Consensus was there and clear. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Proto. The balance of substantive discussion was that this article is straight original research; removing the unsourced text leaves an empty article. It is an acknowledged POV fork, and the only bit worth keeping is the intro, which could go in BJAODN. I can't say I blame Stifle, mind, since the debate was a mess. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure I'm going to assume, in closer's favor, that he found reason to discount several delete votes. My perception of this request is also altered by its having arisen in response to the related one below. Xoloz 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD may not be a vote but there was clearly no consensus to delete. If in doubt, don't delete. We should rightly be reluctant to throw out the good faith opinions of editors on the grounds that they did not cite a particular rule to justify their decision. David | Talk 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe the closer was discounting delete votes for some reason, but we cannot tell this from looking at how it was closed. In tricky cases, I'd really prefer people to explain their reasoning as best they can. Also, due to specific implementation details of the MediaWiki software, deleting and redirecting aren't technically the same thing. This should not mean that we always count delete and merge votes differently - here the reasons given by the merge crowd and the delete crowd had some overlap. I myself am a fence-sitter on the merge/delete issue - ideally, I want the history to be kept in case there's merging to be done. (I already attempted some merging) The thing there was clearly no consensus for was this continuing to be an independant article, and it would be a shame to close it by keeping it seperate. Friday (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, of course. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There were also the ones who wanted this merged, and unless they say otherwise they count against deletion. This was a messy AFD, and a "no consensus" closure does seem within reasonable bounds. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Computerjoe's talk 07:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth

This was deleted in a very short discussion, populated as far as I can tell only by users who had come from the Pope Benedict XVI article. There seem to have been two arguments. 1) That the Hitler Youth had 8 million members. 2) That it was intended as a political slur.

The first argument is an obvious non-starter. We have a Category:Germans even though there are millions of Germans. More importantly, Categories imply notability because they only include members notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I count between 20-30 members, but its hard to tell because vigilante users simply remove their favorite historical figures from the category before nominating it for deletion. More on this below.

The second argument is also specious. It's not a political slur if it's true. Being a member of the Hitler Youth is notable and therefore encyclopedic. If there is evidence that the person was forced to join, etc. that is also notable and should be (and is) said in the article. No different than being a member of the Mickey Mouse Club, which I understand their is a category for.

I created Category: Hitler Youth without knowing that this category had been deleted earlier. I believe my title is a more appropriate title per Wikipedia's naming conventions. Hence, Presidents of the United States rather than Former presidents of the United States. Members of the group were called "Hitler Youth" from what I understand. I know this technically isn't an undeletion, but I want to get consensus for the categories existence before I add any more members to it. And since it was deleted through CFD, DRV is necessary. Think of it as an undelete followed by a rename. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Because membership of the Hitler Youth was mandatory when it existed, what possible use is this category? It would be the same as Category:Germans who were underage during the Third Reich, which would make it so broad that it would be useless. I think whoever created this category only intended to insult the current Pope. I do not like the Pope either but there's no sense in insulting him about something he had no control over. JIP | Talk 07:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of Germans moved out or were killed because of the third reich, so no its not the same thing.--Urthogie 09:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Undelete Notable members of Hitler Youth has a relevance. It was a large organisation. Why should we simply ignore its existence because of its mechanism of entry. Being born in a country gives you automatic citizenship. Its not consistent to use that argument in both places. We also shouldn't delete a category because it might insult someone. Thats ignoring history. Reminds me too much of an insightful novel that predicts such behaviour, and its consequences. Ansell 08:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete MikeHobday 08:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and Listify (either on a separate page or on the Hitler Youth article, depending on length). Categories are primarily for straightforward, uncontroversial facts lacking in complex nuances. This category is clearly a matter of contention in terms of its significance, and clearly there's a world of difference between members who later went on to become nazis and ones who later went on to become popes. :) A list, unlike a category, could properly deal with such details, making it a more seful utility. Also, since undeleting a category won't tell us what its original entries were, I'm not sure this undeletion would serve any real purpose, unless there was some useful aspect of the page's description. -Silence 09:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I hate that idea. Lists are prone to having names added without anyone telling the editors on the subject article. Categories are good, and if people edit-war over a category where there is evidence to support inclusion then they shgould be trout-slapped. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• And categories are prone to having names added without anyone telling the editors on the "list/category of Hitler Youth members" itself, which is even worse. After all, numerous articles that could fit into a category like this will be watched by few, if any, people, making it near-impossible to maintain the category if it grows large enough, as it will be extraordinarily difficult to tell when new entries have been removed or added. A list, on the other hand, makes it possible to specifically observe exactly when changes are made to that list, be they additions or removals, and if one of the changes is dubious, a user can then easily ask about it on the page of the person in question! -Silence 09:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not really, no. Every article is likely to be on some people's watchlists. Just zis Guy you know? 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted That the Pope etc were members of this organisation, is notable and should be noted in thier articles. I'd also support a list here. But should we have categories for every large organisation and all its members. 'Members of the Church of England' would include 75% of all English people, even when most are not prominently involved. 'Boy Scouts'? Members of the National Trust? We could clutter every prominent bio with 50 odd organisations that the individual has been involved with at some point in life - even when most are incidental to understanding the person. --Doc ^ask? 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Per Doc above. This membership, though significant, is too large for a category, and too charged with POV to mention otherwise. Listify as necessary. Also, I don't see any assertion that the CfD process was improper. -Will Beback 09:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid CFD debate with a fair amount of participation, and arguments presented there, as well as by JIP are convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. What do you guys mean, listify? Anything that can be a list can be a category too. In fact, categories are supposed to have tons of articles in them. And the assertion that this category is POV is ridiculous; its an objective fact whether or not someone was a member of the hitler youth.--Urthogie 09:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Anything can be a list can be a category too" - Completely untrue. Thousands of things that can be a list can't be a category. Almost everything that can be a category, on the other hand, can be a list. -Silence 09:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant to point out is that anyone who said "listify" should be willing for it to have an accompanying category.--Urthogie 09:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Why? I'm not saying it's unacceptable for there to be a category, but clearly a list would be better in this case than a category, because it would be easier to keep cited (and thus verified), easier to add much-needed biographical data and context to so the influence and details of the individuals' time in Hitler Youth can be clarified, and easier to explain the significance of overall. Plus there already is a category for this: Category:Hitler Youth. -Silence 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Any time there's a list there can be a category, as you said. So voting listify and delete creates a situation where we have a list thats not connected to any category whatsoever. Also, please note that Category:Hitler Youth covers not only members, but also the subject of the Hitler Youth itself.--Urthogie 09:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion since it is functionally equivalent to Germans born between 1920 and 1930. Just zis Guy you know? 09:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That exclude Germans who's families moved out, or weren't allowed in the Hitler Youth because they were Jewish, disabled, black, gyspy, etc.--Urthogie 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So then the category could also be titled Category:German children born between 1920 and 1930 who were not Jewish, disabled, black, gypsy, etc.? FCYTravis 16:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, it was a unanimous delete on CfD, and no new info has been presented. There's no policy problem here, and none claimed. It looks like this DRV was solely started because the user disagreed with the deletion. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

19 April 2006

Jeniferever

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeniferever

Deleted a little while ago, where it was predicted (correctly) that the article would be shortly recreated, by other people. A band that has been reviewed by major media [54] and less-than-major medi (many blogs), pretty many Google hits, etc. The deleted article was superior to the current version, and should be rescued and put in place of the current article, in my opinion. See Talk:Jeniferever for frustration with process. What do others think? zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but do not prohibit recreation, as there is no policy problem or new information here. Though I see nothing wrong with letting the existing article stay on Wikipedia. I can provide you with the deleted text, if you'd like, and you can integrate it back in. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'll undelete the history if you like. This is a great example of why we should wait until after things happen before trying to document them. We have no need to scoop anybody. Just zis Guy you know? 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominionist political parties Afd

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_shock_sites

Double post, see below. Having received, albeit indirectly per the link above to ani, a complaint regarding this closure I'm bringing it here for review. The issue in the was not if the term "Dominionist" is in parlance, but if there existed citations showing the organisations in the article were Dominionist. No such citations were provided. To me, that's the end of the story. An alternative approach would have been to delete everything that was unsourced and per the title change this to an article on dominionistic ploitical parties in general. Some citations for that topic were presented in the AfD discussion by FeloniousMonk. However we already have dominionism so what would be the point? If an article with proper citations (probably moved to List of Dominionist political parties) appeared that would be a good thing, but this wasn't it.
brenneman^{L} 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of unsourced list. Plus this is what categories are for: if parties are identified as dominionist by credible sources they can be added to the category:Dominionist parties, and editors on the individual articles can debate the merits of that. Just zis Guy you know? 09:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A well done close. The problem with the AFD, was there two parellel discussions going on. Most arguing keep, were really arguing that "dominionism" is a valid topic, worthy of an article, and the nominator had a POV. All true, and all irrelevant. The issue was whether any specific parties on the list, were actually verifiably "dominionist". No relevant sources were ever given in the AFD, and *none* were in the article. I didn't see a single person in the AFD, or in talk, claim "Party X is a dominionist according to Source Y". Much of the "keeps" seem to be motivated as a counter to the nominator's POV desire to remove all mention of "dominionism". Basically, they had a case againt the nominator, but no case for the article. --Rob 12:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I can justify this close using the logic that the debate shifted near its end to the central issue of WP:V -- all prior votes are discountable, as they were missing the point. Right on the merits here. Xoloz 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• When the vote was clearly 'no consensus', this closing was undemocratic, without consensus, unilateral and pure 'Aaron knows best' IAR elitism. I love it - endorse deletion and give the juniour cabalist a cookie. --Doc ^ask? 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. I agree. If you think an article needs sources, tag it. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. This also sets a very bad precedent. Even though the merits of the article were debated for all to see with a majority of voters recommending keeping the article, none counted as much as Aaron's. All that matters is that a single administrator wanted to delete the article. How would any of you feel if you were tried for a crime and acquitted by a jury, then some guy off the street put you in jail anyway? Someone complains, and you get tried again, this time in front of his friends and there's no evidence (or in this case, no article). What a system.--Primetime 21:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You bring up an interesting analogy. Suppose you were accussed of a crime. No evidence was presented. But you were convicted anyhow of being something bad. No matter what you did, you couldn't remove the stigma. That's what the creator of Dominionist political parties did to the parties he branded "dominionist". Nobody, cited *any* source to prove any of those parties were known as "dominionist". It's simple a matter of a lack of evidence. There was *no* evidence. The article never cited *one* source. If any sources were cited, we could have an honest debate, about the legitimacy of the source. But no source was ever cited *in* the actual article. So, yes, we should not convict people without cause. --Rob 22:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know the situation. I can't even see the article, and this isn't an AFD. Maybe it is widely known the parties are dominionist. I do know that ten versus five other human beings voted to keep it. I also know that the burden of proving that the drastic step of deleting an article should be taken lies on the nominator. The default action is keeping the material--and for good reason. This is really scary. Most of the information on Wikipedia is uncited. That means that anyone who happens to be an administrator can delete an article if it doesn't happen to have sources. I have seen administrators under 15 years of age close debates. Do we want to give any administrator the green light to ignore the community? This debate isn't about whether anyone should have voted to delete the article or not. It's about whether it should have been closed the way it was.--Primetime 23:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore There were good, policy-based reasons for the poeple who said keep to keep. To delete was unecessarily out of process and unproductive. JoshuaZ 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• There were three entries, none of which had sources and all of which were disputed. A category was created, but thus far every article to which it has been applied has also been reverted as unsourced. The burden of proof is on the claimant here, and no evidence has yet been presented to support the application of this label to any individual party. As it stands we would have a verifiable but empty list, as we have a verifiable but empty category. Just zis Guy you know? 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against a future, legitimate article at the same or a similar title.-Polotet 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If anybody here seriously wants to have Dominionist political parties, you are perfectly free to immediately make the article. You don't need DRV's permission. All you need to do is cite a source for any names you add. Once, you do that, the article will be kept. Also, the old history could then be restored as well. The only reason for deletion was lack of proper sourcing. Get your sources, and get your article. If anybody wants to see the names on the original list, a kindly admin can undelete the names to somewhere in your userspace. You could move those names into article space, when you can cite sources. Can anybody explain to me, the value of restoring the article, until there are sources? --Rob 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Added: Apparently, the entire list of party names is still at Talk:Dominionist political parties#Old list. So, anybody can use those names, to recreate the article *if* it is properly sourced, regardless of DRV outcome. --Rob 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

List of themed timelines AfD

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_shock_sites

Double post, see above. Having indirectly received a complaint regarding this closure, I'm bringing it here for review. This was a large and fairly ancient page and the debate was limited, so I had a good think prior to deleting it. The arguments presented were "redundant" and later "unmaintainable." and the only serious attempt at refutation was that this was "all in one page." Slicky's response was borderline unintelligible, and a review of the article's history convinced me of the merits of the arguments to delete. This was a judgement call, and I'm intrigued that it was recreated when I was tardy in removing the redlinks. This was certainly the weakest case in which I've ever deleted, and if consensus is to re-open the debate with the existing recomendations in place I'll not be averse.
brenneman^{L} 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, redundant per category:timelines, adds maintenance overhead with no obvious benefit. Just zis Guy you know? 09:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Closer admits that debate was not extensive; I'm uncomfortable giving the axe to this ancient page without more eyes have a chance to see its redeeming features, even if I cannot find them myself. Xoloz 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• When the vote was clearly 'no consensus', this closing was undemocratic, without consensus, unilateral and pure 'Aaron knows best' IAR elitism. I love it - endorse deletion and give the junior cabalist a cookie. --Doc ^ask? 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete No policy cited by closer for their decision. Seems to just be a difference in editorial judgement. In such cases, go with the vote count. Policy can trump a vote, but an admin's vote is worth no more then anybody elses. In this case, the closing admin is effectively making themselves the sole voter. --Rob 17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not commenting on this AfD in particular: Failing a clear policy to point to, isn't the closer's job to evaluate the arguments and only, as a last resort, to attempt to gauge consensus by counting noses? - brenneman^{L} 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither. You shouldn't just count noses, but you should gauge consensus. Gauging consensus is more complicated than keep/delete counts. You should read the arguements, and determine the consensus. Notice, as a comparison in Dominionist political parties. The arguements of most of the keep voters, indicated that they were argueing for something other then what was actually at issue. Hence discounting those votes, was legitimate (as they didn't relate to the relevant consensus). However in List of themed timelines the arguements were entirely on point. Incidently, the keep arguement about being on one page was actually correct, and you were mistaken. List of world's fairs is in Category:Culture-related timelines, which in turn is in Category:Timelines. List of world's fairs is directly on List of themed timelines (no extra clicking required). However, it's not directly on Category:Timelines. Your statement "Category:Timelines is already all in one spot." is literally false. The keep arguement was that by using a single page, one could, sometimes more easily find something. This is true, as a browser "Search in Page" function makes that easy (instead of navigating categories, and sub-categories). So, there was in fact a valid reason for having the list. Now, whether that reason, is sufficient to outweigh the serious problems of maintenance, is not for you to judge. What counts is the keep voters had a reason. You should not insert your reason, over top theirs, unless you have a policy basis to do so. --Rob 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not married to this close, and will happily re-open it without regret if another person or two chimes in, so don't let the following be misconstrued: Where are you getting that it's "my reason" from? That's twice you've explicitly said this without as far as I can see any evidence to suggest that I personally had an opinon one way or another. If this had been in an area where I some history (webcomics, nazi midget clown sex, etc) I might understand. You've presented JJay's argument far better than he did, I might add.
      brenneman^{L} 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

This article regarding the notable martial arts website www.bullshido.net has been completely deleted with no discussion or record of its existence except for a Google cache of it: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:G7G9LEV_RUoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshido.net+bullshido&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

I respectfully request that it be reinstated to its latest incarnation at the appropriate place, and if others wish it to be deleted, that it be done so within the rules of Wikipedia.

Thank you. --Scb steve 22:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• This was deleted by Dmcdevit as a recreation of previously AfD'd content. I can find no evidence that this exact page was previously discussed and deleted. Presumably, Dmcdevit was referring to Bullshido which was deleted on 18 May 2005 per this discussion. Reviewing the deleted versions of both articles, I find them to be similar but not quite close enough in my mind to qualify for the recreated content speedy-deletion criterion. Overturn speedy-deletion and list on AFD. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. I don't think we should even relist; this seems to have been a crossed wire. If Dmcdevit wants to start his own AfD after this is restored, he's free to, but why force it? Mangojuice 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Relist per Rossami. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Rossami.  RasputinAXP  c 03:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD per Rossami. This is a mistaken speedy, although the mistake was understandable. Xoloz 16:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Just saw this and thought I'd comment. I deleted the article because (despite the somewhat different name), it was the same subject as the previously deleted-by-AfD article. While the article's text was not identical (though it was similar), I looked at the AfD and saw that it was deleted for notability concerns, not really anything related to the article's content, so I determined that those notability concerns were still relevant, and that it qualifies as a recreation because it was previously decided that the topic was not notable. Perhaps I was too hasty, but it seemed better to do something about an article that was on a topic already deemed not notable, than to just leave it there. Dmcdevit·t 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not accurate, in my estimation. Bullshido.net is a notable website by both objective and subjective means, which were described in great detail within the discussion page of the original article when the same argument was brought up concerning notability. The .net article has few references to Bullshido as a concept, and is entirely devoted to the nature of the site, as well as notable achievements or features, very much akin to the Wikipedia articles on SomethingAwful, Newgrounds, or Slashdot. It is not the same subject. That is akin to saying an article on lawyers and another on the website lawyers.com are both on "the same subject." --Scb steve 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if you assert that the website is now more notable than it was before, and now merits an article, but it is very clear that the previous article was about the website, which was deemed to not be notable. See the nomination:

"Is basically an advert for bullshido.com, a martial arts training site. Does not appear that anyone uses the term outside of them. In any case the article is nearly all first person. Not likely to ever be an encyclopedic article, and is essentially vanity. - Taxman 22:37, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)"

This is why I said they were on the same subject and why I deleted it. Unless the subject's claim to notability has changed, it shouldn't be recreated. Dmcdevit·t 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is bringing up two different articles, the Bullshido article, and the .net article. I am talking only about the website now. I have made a very clear claim that the notability of the website merits the creation of an article regarding it alone, akin to SomethingAwful, etc. The merits of the Bullshido article have been brought up in the DRV section pertaining to it. When we're talking about a previous article, we're talking about a radically different one almost years ago. I respectfully request that the .net article be undeleted and a formal discussion regarding its validity be made within its discussion page. --Scb steve 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

William Hamlet Hunt

I created this article under my previous username User:People=Shit. Shortly after it's creation, it was speedied. I went to insert the 'hangon' templates, and to contest the deletion on the Speedy Deletion page, only to find I'd been blocked for an 'inappropiate username'. As my IP had been blocked also, I was unable to do anything to stop the deletion. By the time I'd managed to get my IP unblocked and a new username, it had already been speedily deleted. I'm requesting the page (and associated images) be restored, as speedily deleting an article while it's creator is blocked is manifestly unfair and against the spirit (if not the policy) of wikipedia. I'm happy for the article to then be submitted to AFD and be subjected to community consensus on it's merits. Killerman 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. It is an unsourced article about a person supposedly "wanted by police for the attempted murder of Heather", last name not indicated. It was posted with the edit summary "GET THIS FUCKER". This should not be restored or recreated unless it is properly sourced and contains some indication of why this is notable. Gamaliel 18:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I included 3 links, so it was not unsourced. The edit summary is irrelevant. If I hadn't been blocked, and the article speedied I would have asserted notability in the article on the grounds that this person has precipitated worldwide commentary and condemnation, in the region of thousands of comments about him. Killerman 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I apologize, I didn't scroll down far enough and I missed the links. However, they don't change anything. Two Livejournal and one myspace link are not sufficient. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Gamaliel 21:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a notice-board for wanted posters. David | Talk 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I removed this request as trolling, however, the user has reverted me. --Doc ^ask? 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I explained on your talk page, I was invited to list the article here. Therefore I'm not trolling. Killerman 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • As the person who mentioned deletion review to you, I'm not sure I'd quite go as far as saying I'd invited you to post it here. I suggested you read WP:CSD and WP:NOT, which should have made it fairly apparent that the deletion was within process and the material unsuitable for wikipedia. --pgk^(talk) 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc. This is not encyclopaedia material. Just zis Guy you know? 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The main point of the listing is not the content itself, but the question of the actions taken in regard to the deletion. Look at the timeline of events. You have to admit the whole thing looks suspect - essentially the admins are saying "If you create an article we don't like, we'll speedily delete it while blocking you for an unrelated reason so you can't contest it, and making sure you can't create a new account to contest it with that". Now I'm not saying that is the case (assume good faith and all that) but in the interests of transparency, I think it's appropiate to undelete the article and establish community consensus, else it will appear that there is an either some kind of vendetta against me, or an attempt by the admins to censor by any means they consider necessary what they consider in their opinion contributions that don't meet wikipedia guidelines. Killerman 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You're being allowed to contest it now, and community consensus is being established here, and it is thus: keep deleted per JzG. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc and JzG.  RasputinAXP  c 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Not encyclopaedic. --pgk^(talk) 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse the speedy-deletion as a bio with no claim of notability. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. There is no evidence convincing me that there is any possiblity of an encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I've seen several references to this on LJ as well. Nothing there and nothing here suggested to me that this fellow's crime, though certainly horrifying, made this person noteworthy enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Smerdis of Tlön 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as libel. Regardless of the subject's encyclopedicity, the article made no references to any official accusations or charges laid against the subject. Hence, its unquestioning statement that said person committed a crime is blatant and actionable libel, and has no place on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshido

This article was deleted over one year ago and changed to be a redirect to McDojo. [55]. The two main considerations put forth at that time for redirecting to McDojo were that "the Bullshido article was an advertisement for the site" and that "the article was indistinguishable from the McDojo one." The article as it exists now (before being reverted by an admin) contains pertinent information that stands distinctly from the Bullshido.net website. Additionally, the content of the article is greatly different from the McDojo article.

Bullshido and McDojo are two distinct concepts that do have some relation with each other. However, they are different enough and popular enough to merit their own pages. The McDojo article makes no substantiative discussion about fradulent business practices in the martial arts, while the Bullshido article makes few, if any, statements concerning the business-related aspects of martial arts.

Fire Star, an admin on Wikipedia, provided a great deal of assistance on how to properly phrase the language for Wikipedia guidelines, and the standards of evidence/substantiation. These articles have been greatly changed from their original form, and the Bullshido article deserves to be reinstated as separate and distinct from McDojo.--Scb steve 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Allow recreation The article has changed substantially and appears to have resolved the concerns from the old VFD. If someone feels otherwise, they could nominate it for deletion again. Mangojuice 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• I believe it is a viable candidate for an article. We have articles on everything Star Wars, Harry Potter or Captain Kirk ever did, this is a recognisable concept in Western martial arts circles, with at least one notable exposé to the concept's credit. --Fire Star 23:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The article exists. There's nothing here to review. That said, I can't find any reliable sources for this term.  RasputinAXP  c 03:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm with you; no real point to this debate, except for this edit summary implying that a DRV had to be done. Mangojuice 04:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here. But I don't see that this concept is sufficiently important to justify two closely related articles, so a merger is probably in order, and probably to a more neutral heading if one can be found. Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

HAI2U

(see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HAI2U.)

It may be odd for me to ask that this deletion be reviewed, as I nominated HAI2U for deletion in the first place, but I really think Aaron Brenneman stepped over the line here. The votes were 5 for Merge/redirect or redirect to List of shock sites, 8 for keep, and 4 for delete, counting my vote. An admin might be inclined to dismiss one of the keep votes (from User:For great justice) and one of the redirect votes (from an IP).

I brought up two concerns in my deletion nomination: that this was a nn website probably not meeting WP:WEB, and that it only has an article because of its shock value. Later on I conceded that it probably was notable, but I added an additional concern about verifying its popularity. None of the editors participating in the debate commented on that concern. Personally, I endorse the right of an administrator closing an AfD to ignore consensus and delete if there is good evidence that the article is unverifiable. However, in this case, there is no such evidence: I didn't try especially hard to verify anything, and neither did anyone else. I don't think it's appropriate for an article to be deleted because it doesn't currently have sources, at least, not by WP:V over consensus.

I see (after previewing) that HAI2U has been re-created. Nonetheless, I think the debate should take place here, not on AfD, because it's the deletion decision that needs reviewing, and if the article is kept, its history should be undeleted too; it would be useful if anyone tries to improve the article. For my part, overturn and redirect to List of shock sites or relist. Mangojuice 16:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, Aaron closed this fine. Failure to provide reputable sources is an iron-clad reason to delete. Presumably if such sources exist for the topic it will be no trouble rewriting the article to avoid the problems that prompted its deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. Mr. Brenneman should be banned from closing AFDs from this point forward. Silensor 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but this one is one of being between the rock and the hard place. This is exemplaric for a self-governing consenus based community that wikipedia is. It might be not notable, but groups of editors can keep things in the system soley because of numeric power. Which is a good thing for topics that should be included, but a bad thing for things that are not included because they are encyclopedic, but just because people like to have them here despite of being non-encyclopedic. It is one of those great examples that suggest that an ArbCom-like mechanism to deal with content disputes is needed. KimvdLinde 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. There was no consensus. It was uncertain if WP:V was being interpreted correctly in this case, and community opinion showed that WP:V did not stipulate deletion. Also, other users are trying to get the article speedily-deleted and are also trying to blank it.--Primetime 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In fairness, I don't think community opinion said one thing or another about whether WP:V applies here, which is why I'm asking for a review. As for the recreated article, Kotepho, an uninvolved admin, decided it should be a redirect for now, so I think we should go with his opinion until this debate is over. The article should never have been recreated the way it was without going through a deletion review first. Mangojuice 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and delete the recreated version. I echo KimvdLinde's concerns. This was clearly a very difficult call. I mostly concur with Mangojuice's tally of the initial discussion. (I would have discounted another of the participants as a probable troll.) Nevertheless, the closer carefully explained his reason for overrulling the votecount. I concur with his concern that none of the "keep" votes cited a reliable source. No actual evidence was presented to rebut the evidence offered in the nomination. This is a discussion, not a mere vote and closing admins are allowed to exercise discretion in difficult cases like this. The closer was within reasonable discretion here. Rossami (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. We can't ignore WP:V, even if a bunch of 'keep' voters did. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Personally, I find the claim above that "community opinion showed that WP:V did not stipulate deletion" to be just plain weird. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion Good call by the admin, with bonus points for adding full explaination on closing. Afd is not based on simple weight of numbers, but weight of arguements/reasons given, based on policy. Also endorse speedy delete of recreation for CSD G4. MartinRe 00:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, ok part of my problem here was that I doubt anyone really looked for sources. I just did, and the following is the best I could come up with in 10 minutes. [56] It's a set of rules on a web forum, prohibiting links to shock sites, and it names only 3 examples, including hai2u. Mangojuice 00:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is the responsibility of those who want to keep an unsourced article to provide verifiable sources for it. Web forums are not accepted as reliable and reputable sources, per WP:RS. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you want, a front page NY Times story? When we're talking about Internet culture, web forums may be sufficient references. RS is a guideline, please don't cite it as if there is a blanket prohibition against ever using a web forum as a reference. Rhobite 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme keep deleted, WP:V cannot be superceded here or on AfD. And Silensor, mind your manners. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can you be more specific please on what needs sourcing? The first sentence says that it's a popular shock site. Alexa.com says it gets ca. 450k hits every three months,^[57] so that proves it's popular. That statistic is in the article also, with that link to it. The word HAI2U also gets over 17,000 Google hits. The page says it's "written in w3c validated XHTML 1.0 Transitional markup", and that can be verified by visiting the site and clicking View-->Source in Internet Explorer. Finally, its date of creation is linked to Alexa and the fact that it's a shock site is verifiable by looking at the picture.--Primetime 01:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the Alexa rank. A rank of 450K means that it gets enough hits to make it about the 450,000th most popular site on the web, not 450K hits/month or anything like that. Alexa estimates that Hai2u has been exposed to about 3.1 per million users, or about 0.00031% of users. On the scale of websites, Hai2u is not popular. On the scale of shock sites, it might be, but it's harder to prove. Mangojuice 03:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What we need to verify is that 1) It's noteable, and 2) It has been/is used as a shock site. Foolish Child 16:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: AfD is not a vote. --Hetar 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. The AfD result was an obvious keep. I didn't realize we had reached the point where we simply throw away opinions we don't like. Rhobite 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, tentatively. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's overarching principles and no amount of keep votes can compromise that. Ballsy close, not something I would have touched, but fair and consistent with policy. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that I have redeleted the article under G4 until we can sort out the deletion over here. I won't redelete if someone resurrects it, but it's not a good idea. I'm leaving it redlinked so that if someone is really angry about it, they can put it back, but I'd advise against that...that'll only escalate things. Let's get some WP:TEA and finish up our discussion here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist for AFD quite obviously this was closed against a consensus, however it still has not proven to meet WP:WEB standards... relist on AFD and give it a longer discussion.  ALKIVAR™ 08:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as relisting it will just see another unverified and unverifiable article kept as 'no consensus' due to the AFD trolls who don't care about / understand WP:V voting keep to everything. Proto||type 11:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, it's hard to verify, but not impossible, and there was clearly not a consensus for deletion. Foolish Child 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete The article needs cleanup and verification, not pre-emptive deletion because of some admin's vendetta. Tag on {{Not verified}}, perhaps a merge suggestion to List of shock sites, and let Wikipedians work their magic. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 16:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, every stupid little shock site doesn't need its own article on Wikipedia.-Polotet 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

17 April 2006

African aesthetic

Event	Date	Note
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (archive)	5 Jan 06	Closed as "no consensus" by Angr
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)	02:53, 17 Apr	Closed as "no consensus" by Mailer Diablo
Merge discussion on talk page	13:34 to 19:16, 17 Apr	Last pre-redirect version here.
Redirected by Friday	03:01, 18 Apr
Reverted by Deeceevoice	03:04, 18 Apr	Edit summary "Rev. The decision of the administrator was made. No authority to merge."
Redirected by Friday	03:10, 18 Apr
Reverted by Deeceevoice	03:15, 18 Apr
Redirect discussion on talk page	01:54 to 03:16, 18 Apr
Redirected by and protected by Zoe	03:35, 18 Apr
"Deleted" discussion on talk page	03:25 to 04:44, 18 Apr
Merged by Friday	03:59, 18 Apr
Removed in next seventeen edits by Deeceevoice	05:03 to 05:34 18 Apr
(Re?)Created as "African aesthetic" by Deeceevoice	06:19, 18 Apr

Thus bringing us (at last) to the article in question.

• 23:51, 18 April 2006 Zoe deleted "African aesthetic" (recreation of peviously deleted content)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African aesthetic

Deleted by Zoe per link above, restored by FrancisTyers and taken to AfD per link above, Afd closed and page protected as {{tempundelete}} by me, and now we're here. brenneman^{L} 02:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - The article has barely started out. Covers a slightly different subject to previously deleted article and but one no uncited components — contains new sources — if it is original research it is new original research and should be AfD'd accordingly. - FrancisTyers 01:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There isn't any new research, it's still just one person's original research, even if they happened to write a book about it. As I have said in the past, we can have an article about the book, but an article which uses the book to establish some sort of evidence of the book's truth is a violation of WP:V. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• It's mostly a recreation of something just afd'd, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy). It's already been undeleted, so I think we're done here at DRV. There's some discussion to do at the talk page, tho. I'd really like more eyeballs on this whole situation for additional feedback. Friday (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, recreation of a previously-AfD'd article whose consensus was to merge and/or delete, but which Deecevoice keeps trying to retain, so when the article was redirected and the redirect protected, she created this article, which has the same problems of verifiability which the previous one did. This is nothing more than an unverified and unverifiable POV fork. Full disclosure: I deleted this once as a recreation, but Francis Tyers undeleted it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - there was no unverified or unverifiable "original research" in the version you deleted. - FrancisTyers 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: per User:zoe. --Hetar 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• What a tangled mess this one has become... I am unable to find a deletion discussion about this page that was concluded as a "delete" decision. The only discussions I've found so far were closed as "no consensus". The "recreated content" criterion only applies to content which has been previously discussed and deleted. Overturn the speedy-deletion unless there is another discussion that we don't know about yet. There are clearly still some serious issues with the article which must be resolved and it may become appropriate to relist the page, but for now this seems like an issue to sort out on the respective Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - There never was a Delete AfD. - FrancisTyers 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY UNDELETE. THIS COMPLETELY BAD-FAITH DELETION WAS PRECIPITOUS AND NOT DISCUSSED AT ALL BEFOREHAND. The article hasn't even had a chance to develop yet, having been up for less than a day. Deletion was precipitous and not even discussed before this action was taken. I notice there was a tag that suggested it be merged with African art -- a bad move. One most understand that the widely accepted elements of an "African aesthetic" are observable throughout many traditional African cultures; not just in art. This African aesthetic mediates not only artistic expression, but how individuals comport themselves, even how they speak, sit and stand. There is an article on Japanese aesthetics. There also should be an article treating the set of aesthetic/cultural values that has been observed in many traditional, indigenous African societies across tribal groupings, across national boundaries and which underpins so much of the life and art of African peoples. Finally, how on earth can people debate and then vote in any informed fashion the validity of an article without being able to view it and its discussion page? It's bad enough the article hasn't even been developed yet, but many who come across this page will have absolutely no idea what the article intends to treat. The very suggestion that the subject matter be merged with an article on art makes it very clear to me that those who support such a merger have no clue just what the African aesthetic is and how far-reaching its influence is. This very process is absurd on its face, and the precipitous deletion that has brought us all here -- if it isn't illegal in terms of Wikipedia procedures, it certainly should be. The people who support the deletion of this article are also under the mistaken impression that they can and should shoehorn a discussion of the complex phenomenon of African cool (only one aspect of a very complex African aesthetic) as it exists in tradtional African cultures into an article quite clearly and explicitly devoted to pop-culture cool, which features the Fonz as an example of cool. This is ridiculous and an utter trivialization of the traditional African phenomenon (just as the character Fonzie -- engaging as he was -- was a sitcom caricature/trivialization of bad-boy biker cool; even he wasn't the real thing). Frankly, such (mis)treatment is an insult to African culture(s) and betrays just how shallow/nonexistent people's knowledge/understanding of traditional African cultures is. And that is all the more reason this article should be restored. And immediately. The talk page of the article presented a list of sources for possible inclusion in the article. The article featured a partial list of constituent elements of the aesthetic. There is no unsourced information in the article; it is all readily and easily verifiable. If there are problems with the article as it develops, then let it be evaluated and scrutinized the way other articles are treated on this website. As it is, the bad-faith deletion of this article is tantamount to censorship born of abysmally uninformed POV/bias.Deeceevoice 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

An addendum: this action is clearly illegal and not in conformance w/Wiki policy.[58] Deeceevoice 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Eh? The page is there in the history, the talk page is there, there's a link in the introduction here to the last version of that first version of this page. Everything is there to see. - brenneman^{L} 04:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per Deeceevoice. I'm struggling to AGF here. David | Talk 08:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Appears to be a lot of confusion here what is what. First, "no consensus" or even a "keep" does not mean that the article must be kept as it is without any merge. The difference is an editorial one, and while one should be mindful of the discussion on an AFD, the be bold guideline still applies. Second, deletion is not part of a merge, the history should be retained. Third, AFD and DRV are not really the places to decide between redirect/merge/keep as separate article (those discussions are for article talkpages even though AFD often expediates such discussion by recommending merges and redirects). Since there was no AFD debate which had an outright "delete" result here, the deletion was in error, and I will say undelete. Regarding whether this should be kept, merged, or redirected, that discussion is for the talkpages. A big thank you to Aaron for picking up the threads and bringing this here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The deleted article was a brief but somewhat promising looking outline. While the very existence of an "African aesthetic" might be debatable, the article was beginning to make a case that one existed. Whether this will ultimately belong at "cool" or somewhere else is something I don't have an opinion about yet. We have a user who wants to write a referenced article about belief in an African aesthetic, but who is apparently being thwarted by edit wars at "cool" and this deleted page. Right now, he needs some space to work in. Smerdis of Tlön 15:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete - no consensus. Apply normal editing from that point. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 16:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete An AfD closed as no consensus does not prevent a merging, but it does prevent a later deletion as "recreated content." Not sure what Zoe was thinking... I would suggest to DC that, if folks continue to obstruct her work in article space, she might work on a version in her userspace, and post it only when it is complete and referenced. Then, objectors will have no ground on which to base complaints. Xoloz 16:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly considered it. It may have been my next move had this not gone well. But such a thing is truly contrary to the Wiki process, which is collaborative. It's emblematic of the problems with this website that the process does not seem to be able to work when certain articles treating African peoples are at issue. It seems there are some who think the subject matter has validity/relevance only in a European/neo-European context. At least, that's been my experience here. Deeceevoice 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Further, I think it relevant to observe that nearly all those who have been seminally involved in this "conspiracy" to deliberately obstruct this sujbect matter are individuals who were involved in the recent, highly contentious/fractious RfA matter involving me. That's not an accident. Let me direct your attention here.[59] Need any more proof that the article deletion was a bad-faith act? Like a dog with a bone.... Deeceevoice 18:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete but only because I don't see a valid reason for deletion. Frankly, I don't think it is a POV fork of Cool (aesthetic) and I didn't think most of the things in Cool (African philosophy) applied to either cool or african philosophy. The content made more sense in this article, and if we are going to throw it out it should be AFD'd. Kotepho 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The content made more sense in this article, because it had not been selectively gutted the way the former article had been. User: Urthogie stripped the (unsuccessfully) VfD'd article (which later was deleted, anyway) of its structure/basic elements -- and then people subsequently complained they couldn't figure out what the article was about. This one, on the other hand, was simply deleted wholesale. Deeceevoice 18:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, no need to relist on AFD. Guettarda 17:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, this article seems to be growing and developing, and apparently there are multiple, verifiable sources. Why don't we give it a chance, and undelete without prejudice against re-AfD-ing in a month if WP:V issues aren't addressed? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, there are no verifiability issues with the deleted text. Deeceevoice 08:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete. What the hell is happening to Wikipedia here? Silensor 19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Deeceevoice. Yet another peculiar deletion/nomination on a subject that might be categorized as having African-American overtones, or falling outside western European/American interests. Monicasdude 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, right, yes, that's it, my racism has been outed. That was, of course, the only reason I deleted this. Thanks for making that so clear. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact the deletion did not follow Wiki procedure, and the history of the precipitous deletions "Cool (African philosophy)" and its wholly nonsensical redirect to "Cool (aesthetic)" -- despite the failed Vfd -- racism/animus is what makes sense. You don't like the conclusions people have reached? Perhaps you should have considered the consequences of your actions before jumping the gun in such an officious, high-handed manner. And then don't continue to abuse your admin privileges in the future. Speaking frankly, IMO, you're just another example of admin who shouldn't be one. And so far, as near as I can tell, Guettarda may be the only admin who's actually called you on your unprincipled behavior. Precisely why Wiki needs a working sanctions process for incompetent and/or malicious admins -- which it currently lacks. Rob Church's conduct in December is another classic example. He de-sysopped himself -- and then immediately was nominated for reinstatement. The system doesn't work, and Wikipedia suffers -- content-wise, community-wise and credibility-wise -- as a result. As an admin, you're held to a higher standard -- and, given your potential for doing harm, you should be. You should be apologizing to the Wikipedia community for violating a trust instead of your present display of sarcasm. Deeceevoice 08:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest, as nicely as possible, that 80% of the problems that you experiance on Wikipedia are because of your race-oriented paradigm, Deeceevoice. I know it's difficult to believe, but race really isn't that important to most people. Barring any actual evidence of Zoe's hood-wearing secret shame, it's best if you stop the personal attacks.
brenneman^{L} 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's because most Wikipedians are white, middle-class westerners — just like me! - FrancisTyers 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What you call my "race-oriented paradigm" is nothing more than a decision to focus primarily on articles/information related to African peoples, because this website is so abysmally deficient in information in that regard. It is no different from people who choose to focus on other issues, like linguistics, or decorative arts, or animation, or music. And justifiably calling Zoe on her conduct is hardly a personal attack. The votes in this DR clearly reflect a consensus that her actions weren't even borderline appropriate. I find it interesting that at every turn on this website I have repeatedly been called a "racist" without justification and blocked for making nonexistent "racist attacks." Yet when I simply say that someone's actions work to perpetuate the systemic, anti-black bias of the project (as in the case of the lockdown of the Giza Sphinx article), I'm all of a sudden accusing the admin of racism (which I clearly did not). Clearly, Zoe's actions have done the same thing: she has deleted, without discussion or justification an article treating a people whose cultures and contributions are abysmally underrepresented in the project. And that is fact. Deeceevoice 07:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• "racism/animus is what makes sense"

That's what you've said above. I suppose that's not directly calling her a racist, but let's not split hairs. You've given one possible reason for her actions. There are a lot of other possible options: Zoe's batshit crazy. Zoe likes to delete things for no reason. Zoe made a mistake. Zoe doesn't respond well to edit wars over questionable material. None of these require her to give a rat's arse about race. As to your attitude: When a whole lot of non-aligned people keep saying the same things to you there is the possibility that they are correct. It's possible to adress systemic bias without viewing everything through the lens of automatic victomhood that unfounded accusations of racism requires. Although I haven't seen you calling editors "cracker" for a while, anyone even marginally aware of your contributions will know that race is important to you. If you continue to deny (as you've done above) your stance on the issue while simultaneously projecting your world view onto the actions of others, you're going to continue to have strife at every turn.

brenneman^{L} 07:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You've taken your comments here wa-aaay beyond the realm of a DR, but I will respond.

I don't know if Zoe's "batshit crazy" or not. Hell, I don't even know what "batshit crazy" even means. I wouldn't make such an assumption that she's mentally unstable, because I don't have any evidence that would point to such a conclusion. On the other hand, her dogged determination to delete a series of articles devoted to African-centered articles -- in a blatant contravention of Wikipedia guidelines -- certainly is enough to raise the issues "racism/animus" -- the "animus" referring to a general trend among certain individuals to ride my a** around this website, taking potshots at everything I write -- many of them contributing not one scintilla of information to a piece, but picking and picking, offering uninformed opinions, snide comments and totally unfounded charges of "racism" directed at me. (Matt Crypto recently blocked me for a week for making a "racist attack" against him, when by any reasonable standard, it was nothing of the kind. And he gets away with pulling that kind of crap because he's an admin.) It was the third Afd/Vfd on "Cool (African philosophy)," with the latest having been concluded at the end of December. And this was the article that was gutted. The people involved in this DR gang up to gut an article and then use the fact that it has no structure as a reason to delete the article. And, no, I'm not a victim, but there is a piling-on phenomenon, a mob mentality to this crowd. Again, it should be obvious to all that it is not mere happenstance that the usual actors in the African cool/aesthetic deletion cases were virtually (if not entirely) all involved in the RfA involving me in December. There is one individual in particular, who has engaged in edit warring around Wikipedia, who has followed me around the website on a personal mission, who inserts snide remarks at every opportunity, who is routinely uncivil, who personifies this kind of conduct.

I am constantly reminded by others of the contentious RfA, as though it's some sort of sword of Damocles hanging over my head. I am expected and admonished all the while to sit quietly, say nothing even remotely untoward when attacked, or insulted, or my words deliberately mischaracterized. I hold my tongue within reason. I deflect barbs with humor, sometimes sarcasm. Sometimes I ignore the crap altogether. But newsflash: I will not be a whipping boy. I will not walk on eggshells when everyone else is riding roughshod. I will not bend over and take it. I will not bow my head and shuffle. I don't do it in the real world, and I'll be gott-damned if I will do it in cyberspace. And for Wikipedia?!!! That's a pretty lopsided a deal with the devil.

You write, "I know it's difficult to believe, but race really isn't that important to most people, and, "...anyone even marginally aware of your contributions will know that race is important to you." You write that as if it's an indictment. In Talk:African aesthetic, you also wrote, "At the risk of getting off topic, I can clarify one thing: I don't even believe in the concept of "race", as it applies to humans. It's a myth. Biology does not support the idea. The world would be far better off if other people didn't believe in it, either. I have a very hard time understanding anyone to whom race is an important concept- this type of thinking splits us apart rather than bringing us together." It's a recurrent theme in your remarks; you seem to think it important, so I will address it here, as you have.

I've been called "racist" lots of times on this website by people who seemingly have little understanding of what the term actually means. Lots of white people seem to consider anyone black who focuses on issues of race and racism in a manner which they find a little too direct for their sensibilities/comfort level somehow automatically racist. I find that amusing. I will reproduce here my response to your comment in talk and leave it at that:

I just read the rest of your [Friday's] comment. You say you "have a very hard time understanding anyone to whom race is an important concept...." That's too bad because, like it or not, the social, political and economic implications of race as a construct have far-reaching pervasive -- and very often insidious -- impacts upon much of the world. As a non-black, you may be able to discount the notion out of hand. You have the luxury of walking out your door every day and not thinking about the color of your skin. Precious few black people who live "in the belly of the beast" can say that. In fact, I don't personally know a single one. It's not a burden; it's a responsibility. You see, it's rather difficult to convince someone with a gun pointed at their skull to ignore it because it doesn't exist. And pardon us if we look at you like you're a stark, raving lunatic. Try telling that to the Scottsboro Boys, young Till, or James Byrd, W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King (were they still walking and moving among us) -- or Nelson Mandela. Perhaps it's your kind of thinking that splits us apart.

Deeceevoice 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, since Zoe's edit history provides virtually no evidence to support any of the alternative explantions, it's hard to see how they're relevant. Many of those supposedly "non-aligned" criticisms of Deeceevoice echo the cleaned-up, well-dressed, carefully disguised modes of racist discourse that have replaced traditional Anglo-American race-baiting, but the underlying meanings are no less hateful and no less racist, even though some speakers do not understand (or wilfully ignore) the real connotations of their comments. Wikipedia, and Wikipedians, regularly trivialize racist behavior; and Wikipedia manifests an extraordinary structural bias on both the central on peripheral issues, with bizarre and completely undocumented comments like this one constituting the norm rather than the exception: Contrary to popular belief worldwide, racism in America is by no means restricted to Caucasians. In fact, most surveys have shown that African Americans have a higher percentage of admitted racists than any other ethnic group in the nation. (from Racism). At best, Wikipedia manifests a studied, if not determined, pattern of insensitivity, nowhere better displayed, I suspect, than in the quite ill-advised way that Dixie was displayed as the article of the day, with a racist caricature prominently displayed on the main page and the explanatory material effectively buried, not visible on the opening screen in most common display modes.

It's not an accident that Wikipedia devotes more editorial space to Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues than to the entire careers of African-American writers like Ralph Ellison, Samuel R. Delany, Richard Wright, Ishmael Reed, or even James Baldwin. There are 138 entries in African_American_writers, as compared to 700-odd in Adult_models (and 500+ in American_porn_stars), 400+ in the 18 different categories of Pokemon characters, 196 entries in Apple_II_games, and 165 entries in American_heavy_metal_musical_groups. Jack Thompson takes up much more space than Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Amalya Kearse combined; the tempest in a teapot Kelo case, a favorite of rightist ideologues, gets much more attention than Brown v. Board of Education. And the Wikipedia "community" response is to hound editors like Deeceevoice who point out such unacceptable phenomena, to condone deliberate provocations of such editors while actively censoring their honestly felt responses for supposed contraventions of Wikipedia's social norms that are excused when committed by editors with different political sensibilities. In most other settings, an organization which treated its members like Wikipedia could easily be seen as a violation of civil rights laws, resulting in substantial sanctions and overwhelmingly unfavorable public attention. That would be more healthy, in the long run, for Wikipedia than the festering bias that so many users disregard, too often even approve, right now. Monicasdude 15:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Disparaging someone because of their race is racism, and you have done it to me on Wikipedia, and likely off it as well. You are not being asked to "bend over and take it". You are being asked to follow our policies, just like everyone else. When you don't, there are consequences, such as being put on probation by the Arbitration Committee. These consequences are not acts of racism. It may, of course, be easier for you to think of them that way, as the alternative explanation may be more uncomfortable for you to contemplate. — Matt Crypto 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Crypto, I'm confident that any reasonable, objective person who examines your assertion that my words were somehow a "racist attack" will find it as flimsy/groundless as I do. Oh, there's that sword again. Guess I'd better duck! You don't get it, do you? You can ban me for life from the website. To quote mari evans: "Let uh revolution come. Cain't be like nuthin' I done already seen." I'm still not taking crap. I'm still not shuffling. *x* Deeceevoice 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't get it. I don't want to ban you for life. I want to you help us write an encyclopedia -- an encyclopedia that is not skewed towards certain ethnicities. I dunno, maybe you want to do the same. Simultaneously, I want you to avoid personal attacks and incivility -- which happens to be the policy around here. That's nothing to do with "taking crap", or "shuffling", or whatever it is you're saying. It's a basic level of courtesy and professionalism (or whatever the equivalent is for non-professionals...) However, if you equate "not taking crap" with rudeness and incivility, then the outcome is inevitable: your editing here will be curtailed by blocks and bans. — Matt Crypto 15:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. I wrote what I wrote. Period. Deeceevoice 15:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Move to userspace, expand and relist MikeHobday 08:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and consider a move to African aesthetics--Urthogie 09:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete; agreeing with Deeceevoice is not something that comes very naturally to me, but it doesn't seem like any proper process was ever followed in the deletion of this article. This is spillover from a series of edit wars over "Cool" and related articles, but none of those ever reached consensus to delete or merge either, and this particular article has never gone through an AfD or given a chance to develop or not naturally. *Dan T.* 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy: the article is just starting out, and finishing it there before moving it to article space is not a bad idea. Either way, there's no grounds for a deletion here. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

SSOAR

• Request placed in header
• Special:Undelete/SSOAR (admin only)

The page titled 'SSOAR' was deleted. I believe it should not be because it is neutral, and there is original research because no previous research has been done. I did that page as part of a school research project on animal rights in Tacoma. So I request that this page be undeleted. Thank you. Scorpio398 08:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Brian, <email address removed> / 18 April 2006

• Endorse deletion - it may be the only animal rights group operated in South Puget Sound, but South Puget Sound is not so big as to make its sole animal rights group encyclopaedically notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per JzG, who was exactly on point. Xoloz 17:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per above, and Wikipedia is not a place where original research should be conducted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• A bit cautious, but I will Endorse the deletion. The deletion was a speedy one as an A7 candidate, and with 200 members I would have prod-ed or AFDed it if I had spotted the article myself. But there is no really good assertion of notability here (as JzG pointed out) and media coverage is almost nonexistant, so I think it was within the bounds of A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Angry Aryans

One of most notable White Pride bands in America, still deleted and with very few votes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka Jačov (talk • contribs)

• Undelete - per above. Luka Jačov 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I hate the non-notable argument in cases like this... --GTubio 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as original nominator. Back then, they had no Allmusic profile and were not on Amazon. Now, they have no Allmusic profile and are not on Amazon. Are they one of the most notable white pride bands? Says who? And of they are, but still remain unknown by AMG and Amazon, perhaps that just means that white pride music is a subgenre sufficiently trivial that even the most notable fail to rise to the level of WP:NMG. Just zis Guy you know? 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, closed properly, participation was sufficient, no new evidence presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, nothing has changed.  RasputinAXP  c 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Quite a few people listen to them according to http://www.last.fm/music/Angry+Aryans. estavisti 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. About 1000 downloads of free ringtones. I don't think that establishes much at all. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I consider, "This white pride band is encyclopedic" to be a pretty extraordinary claim. Xoloz 17:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. The JPS 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• RelistUndelete lots of news sources seem to think that they are promiment enough to represent the genre, and the genre is notable enough to write articles about. See Telegraph ABC News Featured in that VH1 special on this genre Does Canada count as an international tour? Now Toronto Guardian Unlimited Anti-Defamation League VH1 Special. Two albums on Resistance Records and one on Tri-State Terror (actually, it seems that Racially Motivated Violence was released on both labels). I see no reason why this band needs to be held to a higher standard just because it is distasteful. Is this another rec.music.white-power vote? Kotepho 19:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Kotepho, all of those news sources you linked above mention this band in an off-hand manner in lists of other such bands. And the Canada appearance was not a tour, it was an appearance at a festival in Toronto with five other bands. How does that establish that they represent the genre more than any other such band? I don't see sufficient grounds here to reconsider this deletion. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The newspapers seem to think that they represent the genre well, otherwise they would not have used them as examples. I don't really think that the Canadian concert really represents an international tour, but it is ill defined. I just think that an international tour is ill-defined. A group could play dates in a few European countries easily and qualify while a band that did not cover much of America might not. Kotepho 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • In each case, Angry Aryans are just one of several bands listed as representative of the genre. The claim has been made that they are one of most notable White Pride bands in America. However, so far no one has produced a review or article on this band that does anything more than mention them in a list. I would say that they are nowhere near as notable as Prussian Blue. When Angry Aryans has gotten the kind of coverage that Prussion Blue has, come back. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I have no idea if they are the most notable white pride band, nor did I make that claim. I only claim that they have been used to represent the genre. The Detroit News even says "We do just happen to live...where prominent skinhead bands (the Angry Aryans) roam..." (Michigan's newest export not something to be proud of: hate; October 21, 1999; Laura Benman). Even though they are used in a list, that list is usually short (2-5). Resistance Records alone has at least 8 bands, so those making the lists are being selective.
          • If they are so notable, why has no one been able to point to a review of their work, or an article that talks about them, other than simply including them in a list with other white power bands. They simply are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
            • You never seem to actually respond to any of my comments and constantly argue red herrings. You say that nothing I have pointed to mentions them in anything more than a list, and I have given multiple examples (see VH1 special that interviews them, my quote from The Detroit News, the interview by Resistance magazine). I'll even throw more things on the pile that you will ignore. The fourth issue of Rock Against Communism includes an interview with them, too bad it is Polish[60]. Bizarre magainze likes their album cover, 10/10! [61] Interview from Resistance Magazine, One Two interviews from Condemned Magazine Kotepho 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Your argument that they should be required to have the same amount of media coverage as Prussian Blue is nonsensical. Should we delete The Who because they do not have as much coverage as The Beatles? The only yardstick that applies is WP:BAND. Even if you do not agree on the media aspect, they do have two albums released on a notable record label and they were featured in the VH1 special. Kotepho 16:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"...largest neo-Nazi white power record label in America: Resistance Records." Reistance Records is owned by William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance. `...National Alliance, called by the Anti-Defamation League, "the single most dangerous hate group in the country."` "Resistance could sell more than 60,000 CDs this year, and gross more than $1 million by next year." (SOUNDS OF HATE RESISTANCE RECORDS LOCAL NEO-NAZI USES ROCK TO SPEW RACIST DOCTRINE, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), March 5, 2000, CLINT O'CONNOR)

The band has been interviewed by Resistance Magazine (Rights advocates say supremacists' music fuels biases,The Washington Times,August 7, 2000,Author: Brad Knickerbocker), so I'm sure you can cite some things from that aswell.

IMHO, this clearly meets WP:NMG under a handful of categories and I haven't even finished looking through the 31 hits in America's Newspapers for "Angry Aryans". The AFD may be valid, but that doesn't mean it came to the correct result. Kotepho 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per nomination and especially GTubio. 1652186 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete but relist this should go through AfD. JoshuaZ 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It did, back in November. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes I know. My phrasing was poor, I meant it should go through AfD with the new info. JoshuaZ 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I stated my opinion on the notability argument in my response to Kotepho above. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, sufficiently notable. Rhobite 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist with notability information presented. Deserves a fairer shake. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but do not prohibit recreation, policy was followed here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete seems notorious enough.  Grue  17:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until there are articles in legitimate media focusing on them rather than simply mentioning them (or until they achieve increased notability some other way).-Polotet 21:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dis-Connection

ADMIN NOTE: It has been brought to my attention that there has been a case of vote solicitation by Luka. If I suspect any more ballot stuffing, I will close this deletion review and leave the article deleted. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dis-Connection

• Deleted with 13D and 11K. Notable web-comic still deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luka Jačov (talk • contribs) .
• Undelete - per above. Luka Jačov 08:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with the closer's decision to close this as a delete. Many of the keepers didn't seem to understand Wikipedia policy. Fetofs ^Hello! 12:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --GTubio 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per nomination on the AfD: article was written almost entirely by the comic's creator, has only been online 2 months, Alexa rank is of the order of 2 million, around 350 Googles, "keep" votes were solicited. Above assertion that this is a "notable" webcomic appears to lack any provable basis in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG, though more explanation by the closing admin would've been good to avoid this.  RasputinAXP  c 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Evidence was presented within debate of attempted "new user vote-stacking." Under that circumstance, admin was empowered by discretion to discount suspicious opinions, of which several "keep votes" without explanation are clear examples. As Rasputin says, a more thorough explanation from closer would have helped here. Xoloz 17:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete ---serbiana - talk 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, policy was followed here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no reason given for undeletion, AfD looks in order. Mike _{(T C)} 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Appears to have been an in process deletion and no reason given to undelete. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (keep deleted); the decision by the closing administrator was correct. - Liberatore(T) 12:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigave National Association

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigave National Association I feel that this article was wrongly deleted, because, not only was the original deletion vote withdrawn, but a source was found for the information, a source which also saved another article from deletion. I would like the deletion vote to be reconsidered. Thank you Laceymichelle 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse the nomination for reconsideration. Examination of the deletion vote will show that a small group of editors had "taken against" both articles from the outset (basing their objection on lack of independent verification). When one of the two articles was clearly verified, their tactic was to press for the deletion of the other (this one), as (apparently) a precursor to redeleting the first, verified, one, as beiong merely an adjunct to a deleted article. This needs to be independently reviewed, and note taken of the simple sheep-votes which will come in in favour of continuted deletion, on behalf of the vested interests. No vote, so as not to unbalance the scales. -- Simon Cursitor 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If you look at the times of postings in the two AfD's, you will find that the above description bears no resemblance to actual events. At 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC), in the Tuatafa Hori AfD, LaceyMichelle claimed she had a book to back her claim. (This was six hours after the last vote in the Sigave National Association AfD.) There was some back and forth between her and Mak in trying to verify the existence and title of the book. As for the geocities link, no one ever gave it any weight to begin with, as geocities does not meet any reliable source criteria. The claim of a "tactic" when "one of the articles was clearly verified" is totally false. What verification there was (if you consider that book to be verification) occurred after all votes had been already made. Fan1967 19:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• What source? The onle source discussed in the AfD was a Geocities site, and the article as deleted cited no sources at all. Just zis Guy you know? 13:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Myspace is not a reliable source, and the article was a hoax. A Google search for Tuatafa Hori turns up both wiki articles and a cache from Myspace where the name "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave" was used by a 15-year-old myspace user, currently titled Spacey. This is matched by checking the timestamp on the Google cache: "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave. 3/28/2006 8:28 PM hey miss merlie ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ..." on the accompanying myspace entry. The article was never verified by a reliable source. WP:NOT for things made up in a Florida school one day.  RasputinAXP  c 14:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted At the least, this has no reliable source at all; at worst, it's a hoax. Xoloz 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I find it unlikely that the book Laceymichelle cited, The changing cultures of Oceanic peoples during the nineteenth century has any verifiable information about a modern-day princess; I find it less likely that Laceymichelle bought this book at a used book sale at her local library when it was originally published in France in 1957 and only 2 academic libraries in the world have a copy.Thatcher131 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted, as per the analysis made above. Even if there were new sources found, unless they pass the reliable source test, they aren't information that would significantly affect the outcome of an AfD. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1313 Mockingbird Lane

The debate below has been copied from my user talk page (see discussion at User talk:Hamilton Styden#1313 Mockingbird Lane -- Rick Block (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)) and seems to have stalled. I read the requirements regarding notability and by those specific guidelines, the article I was submitting,although not entirely completed, contains qualifications for notablility under several sections of the music guidlines although only one is needed for notability.It is my understanding that I am now forever prevented from rewriting this article. I would like to submit this for undeletion. Thank you

Hamilton Styden 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, the artistdirect and allmusic pages are identical, and neither one mentions a single album, apparently they only had two singles and appeared on compilation discs for a record company, Cacophone Records, which doesn't even have a website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for now. My Styden, your understanding is incorrect: while you should not repost the article, you are welcome to work on a draft copy in your userspace, improving it with evidence of the band's notability. You may ask in the "content review" section to have any admin userfy a copy of the old text for you. Xoloz 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The information about the band regarding amount and type of official releases provided by Zoe above is incorrect. The All Music Guide is incomplete. As I clearly have written in my article, the bands discography which contains no less than 7 singles,2 four song ep's and two full length releases on well known indie garage labels (1 full length lp "Have Hearse Will Travel" Sundazed 1990) and (Trikaidekaphobia full length CD Midnight Records 1993) are chronicled in the book "The Knights of Fuzz" By Timothy Gassen ISBN # 1-89855-02-05. This is a valuable guide to the genre of garage rock and contains many of the bands current listed on Wikipedia in that catagory.

On the subject of "notable bands", there currently is a band "Mockingbird Lane" listed on Wikipedia with non notable credentials who clearly don't have a functioning website(although they provided a non functional link) and make dubious non verifyable claims to a connection with Steven King. Additionally, they certainly don't have two full length indie releases and their current link only appears to go to an Ebay store.Although I have been encouraged by others to post deletions on such pages, I am not personally interested in tearing down others, I only wish to create an article under the guidelines as I have read and understood them regarding notability. Hamilton Styden 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A more complete discography is available @ ((http://www.geocities.com/theecaveman/1313mockingbirdlane/1313MOCKINGBIRDLANE.htm))

Hamilton Styden 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fred Moss

This article shouldn't have been deleted, as it was notable (and certainly not speedy delete non-notable!). I was also going to continue adding to it over the next couple of days. 83.146.55.85 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was the third admin to delete it, and in this case, protect it. There is no claim of notability, and sadly, being a murder victim is not inherrantly notable, regardless of modest media coverage. As an aside, the page began to turn into an attack on the subjects, through an unencyclopedic image and a blatantly vandalistic ogg. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's have a proper debate on whether it was notable then, not a speedy delete; also note that Christopher Nudds has been implicated in the murder of a retired colnel: this case got a hell of a lot of publicity in the uk (but bear in mind so did that of Fred Moss, and there's plenty of much less notable murder victims here. 83.146.55.85 18:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. The other two deletions hardly compare to what was deleted the third time! 83.146.55.85 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD, where I will vote for deletion. I don't think anything will be lost by demonstrating the community consensus to delete this article. David | Talk 20:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ooooooh, I've actually met you in real life, you're a decent enough bloke. 83.146.55.85 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that is ever so slightly intimidating - care to give me a clue as to who you are? ;-) David | Talk 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry... although if you think about people interested in traveller's rights that were at catz - there can't be that many of us ;) 83.146.55.85 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This whole mess has been filled with inappropriateness. The image was inappropriate for wikipedia. The spoken word file had an appalling ending. An article about a recent murder and conviction is too much of a liability if POV and immature sound files are uploaded. If we keep ths article, then it should be semi-protected, with additions discussed on the talk page. I would be more than happy to add genuine, verifiable information to the article suggested by an IP. However, we must not allow atrocities like that ogg file. The JPS 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reviewing the text on the various deleted versions, I can find no claim or evidence that this person met the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies either before or because of his death. To me, this looks like a valid use of speedy-deletion criterion A7 even before worrying about the recurring vandalism that this page seemed to attract. I endorse the speedy-deletion but will reconsider that decision if credible evidence can be presented here that this article would have even a slight chance of surviving a regular AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• To me the media coverage seems to be a claim of notability. It might not survive an AFD, but likely deserves a chance. So, I think if an attack-free version exists, it should be undeleted, semi-protected, and AFD'd. If not, maybe ask somebody to work up a version in user space, to show they're serious about making a real article. -Rob 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be willing to do that (as gypsy eyes), but only as a very last resort, I still think the article should go up for AFD, if not fully. 83.146.55.85 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I don't know whether this was a big deal or not in the Cambridge area, but I'd be willing to see its notability thrashed out on the talk page or on AFD. There were some nasty contributions to versions of the article, but Gypsy Eyes seems to be adding actual useful information. FreplySpang (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm prepared to support undelete and list on AfD, but this does appear to have been created specifically to attack Nudds for some unaccountable reason. BBC News shows that the case happened, but not that it is especially notable (I live in England and certainly don't recall hearing of it). The article subject was a traveller engaged in hare coursing, pretty much a classic case of WP:HOLE. Keep dleete dis also valid as I think that would be the outcome of any AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't remember Fred, surely you remember the unexplained murder of colnel on his doorstep around a year and a half ago? Nudds is 'suspected' of 'being involved' in that too... 83.146.55.85 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete this please let it go to articles for deletion if you want Yuckfoo 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: no need to run this through AfD where it will be deleted once again. --Hetar 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan

This article was originally deleted (rightfully) for being a poorly-written and PoV-infested half-stub. Due to the original author's lack of understanding regarding Wikipedia's editing procedure, it was recreated, and the page is now blocked for good. I have (as part of an agreement on another page), helped the author write a significantly better article that I hope to replace the article with. The new article may be found at: User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin/Sinagogue of Satan. Essentially, I am hoping the article to be undeleted such that it can be replaced with a better article. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not overturn AfD, keep deleted. This is indeed well-written and NPOV to a certain extent (it still reproduces some beliefs as fact, e.g. "even though atheism does not have a God, it still is a belief"), but unfortunately it's also bereft of any assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Nice article, but no evidence of notability yet. Do feel free to add any valid evidence to the draft, and return here then. Xoloz 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted with no prejudice against recreating if evidence of notability is given. JoshuaZ 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. -article real seems ok now. Luka Jačov 11:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. We look for references, not notability. --GTubio 13:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete seems OK now. --estavisti 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Jovanvb 14:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We look for references and notability, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This gets 418 Google hits, which is negligible. Who is crearting this new, good article? Is User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin connected in any way with the founder of this so-called religion, one Rev. Michael S. Margolin? The names do appear on the surface to be somewhat similar. Where are the reliable sources from which we can verify the neutrality of this article? Where is it described in secondary sources? There is a reason we require an element of notability, and it is that those people, groups or concepts which are not notable, lack sufficient coverage to allow us to ensure that the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia are followed in respect of those subjects. Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted self-promotion article on a micro-faith written by its inventor, not even an assertion of notability (no members mentioned aside from the Rev who created it), and as for references? the only one given is the group's own website. --Doc ^ask? 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As some questions have arisen, I will strive to answer them. Yes, the User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin is the founder of the religion: one reason that his original was deleted. The current version that is posted in his userspace was based on an entry that he showed me on another site: I modified it to make it far more NPOV and expand a bit upon it. I myself am in no way associated with the Sinagogue of Satan. I will make no claim in its notability (as one reason I relegated it to the lower regions of the Satanism article was its lack of notability compared to the main Satanic groups), but it should be noted that a Satanic organization, due to their somewhat taboo and underground nature, is likely to have significantly less of an Internet presence than most other groups. And yes, I realize that this does not help solve WP:V. If it helps, the book Think You're the Only One? by Seth Brown does devote a spread to the organization, though whether this provides notability or not is certainly questionable. I also feel it should be noted that I am bringing this request on the behalf of User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin and an agreement we made on Satanism, and that if you feel anything towards me to not let it factor in with your judgement. Thanks. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep Deleted - or, if possible, go back in time and keep from being created in the first place. This has no place here: unverifiable, and if so, utterly non-notable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. How is this not verifiable? Silensor 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Um... there is no source? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted per WP:V.-Polotet 21:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

15 April 2006

Steve Reich (Army)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Reich (Army)

This article was created after Reich died in a plane crash in Afghanistan. It was deleted after an AfD vote, but I'd like to see this reviewed. When tested against WP:BIO, Reich played at the highest levels of amateur sport, received large national media attention in the US (USA Today, ESPN.com, Connecticut Governor) and is notable for the events described on List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan under June 28. I've had a temporary copy of the article here since last July. Does this article warrant inclusion? Harro5 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the deleted article and the evidence presented here, I do not believe that Major Reich meets the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. As a veteran, I mourn his death in Afghanistan but find no evidence that his death is significantly different than the thousands of other casualties in wars throughout history. I can find no evidence that his career was especially noteworthy, though he does appear to have been competent and respected in his profession. Looking at the evidence available about his sport career, I do not agree that it meets the standards for inclusion either. Endorse closure. Wikipedia is not a memorial. (Disclosure: I participated in the first deletion discussion.) Rossami (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - wot Rossami said. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. Quite sad, but I'm sure many Majors have had successful careers outside the military. Nothing in this biography suggests encyclopedic notability. Xoloz 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

14 April 2006

Schism Tracker

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schism Tracker

The article about the only Impulse Tracker based tracker which is nearly every day updated and still under development has been deleted twice.

I am a Schism Tracker user and ocasional tester. I have reported to the authors that this excellent tracker is being banned under wikipedia. It has a very good user and fan base, it is included under Debian distributions, it's totally open source and it has active forums. Also, it's now the only MS Windows Impulse Tracker Clone, so there are not reasons for deleting this entry. Also, it's totally multi-platform (Linux, MAC OSX, Morphos, Windows, BSD) and opened to every people who wants to help the development (now I am trying to port it to Yellowtab Zeta). You say at Deletion Log that "there no evidence of innovation". Have you used it? It has too much features that Impulse Tracker and current developper is adding new and modern features to it. You can't talk about a software if haven't used it.

Watch http://nimh.org/schism or the forums http://rigelseven.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/storlek/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=schism.

Also, this entry on Wikipedia is a real gate to new users, as I knew schism tracker thanks to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is culture, is not censorship. So because of that, this great tracker, must be here. xenon_soft 21:32, 14 April 2006 (GMT +1)

• Endorse original deletion (and hence my own subsequent speedy). <1000 ghits, plus - as xenon_soft says - it is nearly every day updated and still under development, and this entry on Wikipedia is a real gate to new users - WP:NOT an advertising medium. Just zis Guy you know? 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Knowledge is not advertising. It's like you say that Wikipedia is a way of advertisement of AC/DC, Metallica because some people can know this groups here. Having <1000 hits it's not a real or objetive reason for deletion, as simply being open source or being included in Debian distribution a piece of software can be included here. Also, it's very related to IMPULSE TRACKER and yes, it you look CVS web it's constantly under development. This is simply a way of censorship and a limitation of knowledge (it's totally related to more that one entry here) and culture. Finally it follows totally this WIKIPEDIA RULE (as you know it must follow ANY of the rules in WP:SOFTWARE): "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Fedora Core or Debian, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer" xenon_soft 11:20, 15 April 2006 (GMT +1)

• Nope. The difference is, readers have already heard of AC/DC and Metallica. Here, you say the article is a "gate to new users" - which I don't dispute at all. And that is one of the things Wikipedia is not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per JzG.-Polotet 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Notable per WP:SOFTWARE, actively developed, and above all: the only tracker available for modern operating systems (and also the only open-source tracker) that decently replicates the Scream Tracker / Impulse Tracker -style user interface. There aren't even many programs of this kind under development, so I really can't see the point in the deletion. Viznut 12:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per being one of a kind. Alternatively add as section to Impulse Tracker. // Gargaj 15:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China

Out of process deletion and renaming to Category:Subdivisons of the Republic of China (misspelled) by Changlc (talk · contribs).

1. The main article for this category is Political divisions of the Republic of China.
2. The series template ({{ROC divisions levels}}) is entitled "This article is part of the series: Political divisions of the Republic of China (Taiwan)".
3. The category title should match.

This was done at the urging of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) (on Talk:Changlc, out of view of the rest of us) during Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4. Conradi was the instigator of many such out-of-process deletions over the past year. It was extremely inappropriate for administrator Changlc to make this change without consensus, and during the debate.

--William Allen Simpson 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and reinstate original Neither side in this discussion should pursue aggressive standardizing until a consensus guideline is achieved. In consideration of the series template name, the earlier title is more appropriate, and should remain until this resolved. Xoloz 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, names of categories should not be unilaterally changed without discussion when the name change might be controversial.-Polotet 22:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 April

1. Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal Closure as redirect endorsed unanimously. 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. List of films about phantom or sentient animals Closure endorsed unanimously/kept deleted. 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Feminists Against Censorship Speedily (and unanimously) overturned and restored. 09:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Waldo's wallpaper Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth Deletion closure endorsed. 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Template:Kosovo-geo-stub Deletion closure endorsed. 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
7. HAI2U Deletion closure endorsed; no consensus on redirect created during DRV debate - take to RfD if there are objections. 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Anabasii restored [62] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[63] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [64] 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Jeniferever Deletion endorsed; however, valid recreation permitted during debate. 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Dominionist political parties Closure endorsed, kept deleted. [65] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [66] 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Mindscript - kept deleted. I don't know whether I should consider User:212.209.39.154's blanking of the undeletion notice and discussion as a withdrawal of the request to undelete, or as vandalism; but the article had no chance to be undeleted anyway. See [67]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [68] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [69] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [70] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [71] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [72] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [73] 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
21. UAAP Football Champions contested PROD speedy restored, listed at AfD. 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Suzy Sticks, history and content userfied [74] 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
23. List of themed timelines AfD, debate reopened (without prejudice) by original closer. 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
24. SSOAR, deletion endorsed unanimously. 01:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Sigave National Association, kept deleted. [75] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [76] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[77] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[78] 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China Deletion overturned. Noted at WP:CFD. 10:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
30. William Hamlet Hunt Deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI, Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: Miami and Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: New York deletion endorsed and noted at WP:CFD. Diff. 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Gateware. Deletion endorsed. Diff. 15:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Tuatafa Hori Overturned, deleted. Diff. 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
34. PIGUI Deletion overturned, article reinstated. Diff. 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
35. List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years Deletion overturned, recreated. Diff. 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Category:Subdivisions by country to Category:Administrative divisions by country relisted at WP:CFD on April 15. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT Userfied. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Switchtrack Alley Deletion endorsed, a consensus against userfication also exists. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Daniel Brandt Third and fourth afd closures endorsed, article kept. Dif for discussion here. 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Harry's Place Mistaken nomination. Nominator was confused about how to contest the tagging of the page as a speedy. Discussion moved to the article's Talk page. 12:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Template: Future tvshow Speedy undeleted as contested PROD. 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
42. SFEDI Deletion overturned, list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFEDI. [79] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [80] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [81] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [82] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [83] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [84] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [85] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [86] 04:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
51. William T. Bielby, mistaken nomination now resolved. 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Slam (band), speedy kept; lister thought {{oldafdfull}} implied article was being renominated for deletion. [87] 6:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
53. List of news aggregators, kept deleted, protected. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Joshua Wolf, kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Gigi Stone, no consensus to restore. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
56. John Law (artistic pioneer), kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
57. George Goble, made redirect. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Top Fourteen, delete closure endorsed (speedily so, after sockpuppet problems.) 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Talk:Orders of magnitude (new chains)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Orders of magnitude (chains), Talk:Orders of magnitude (chain page names), Talk:Orders of magnitude (template)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/template and Talk:Orders of magnitude (converter), speedily restored and moved to Talk:Order of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chain page names, Talk:Order of magnitude/template and Talk:Order of magnitude/converter, respectively. [88] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [89] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [90] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [91], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [92] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [93] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [94] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [95] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [96] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [97] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [98] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [99] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [100] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [101] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [102] 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, deletion reversed, listed on AFD. 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Talk:Userboxes, no consensus to restore deleted versions. 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Gilles Trehin/Gilles Tréhin, kept deleted; no consensus to restore. New discussions on possible future article at Talk:Gilles Trehin [103]15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Robert "Knox" Benfer, kept deleted. Page protected. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Bonez, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
80. 50 Bands To See Before You Die, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin1 - unanimously kept deleted. 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
82. James H. Fetzer, original speedy deletion of article upheld, recreated redirect left in place. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
83. List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Portuguese Discovery of Australia, delisted early—inappropriate for deletion review, as page version was never deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Doorknob (game), deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
86. Betty chan, kept deleted. Copy of article reposted on talk page moved to User:Snob/Betty Chan; talk page deleted per CSD G8.14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
87. Young Writers Society, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
88. Mike Murdock, deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
89. David R. Smith, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
90. Stir, deltetion overturned, relisted on AFD where there was a consensus to keep. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
91. California State Route 85, status quo maintained. 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
92. Control Monger, restored, relisted for AFD. 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
93. MPOVNSE, kept deleted. 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
94. Omar Q Beckins, kept deleted. 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
95. The Go, deletion overturned. 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
96. John Fullerton, deletion endorsed. 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
97. Imaginary antecedent kept deleted; sadly (and very surprisingly) appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia:No original research; completely unreferenced. 14:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
98. Template:People_stub restored, unprotected, listed for consideration on WP:SFD. [104] 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
99. Myg0t overturned and undeleted. 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
100. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
101. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
102. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
103. Category:Roman Catholic actors, speedy deletion reversed; relisted for further consideration at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31#Category:Roman_Catholic_actors. March 31 2006