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.

Upfront Rewards

• 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? Would someone email it to me?

Email it to whom? Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously Elvey, three lines up. · rodii · 11:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Others

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)

• Someone deleted User:Freestylefrappe a while ago, and then I created a page with the disclaimer that he/she left. Can someone restore the history? Thanks. KI 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It was user:Freestylefrappe themself who deleted the page, which is perfectly allowable unless there is some need to retain the information that was there - see Wikipedia:Userpage. Having had a quick look through the most recent version prior to announcing their departure I cannot see anything anything that we need to have. Unless there is a reason I'm not aware of (perfectly possible as Freestylefrappe isn't someone I interacted with much) then I don't see why we need the history. Thryduulf 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• No the talkpage history is still there (as it should be), and unless there is good reason otherwise, a user is entitled to have his userpage history deleted. --Doc ^ask? 21:36, 25 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)

29 April 2006

Feminists Against Censorship

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminists Against Censorship

Dlyons493 listed this page for deletion on the grounds that they were a "non-notable very diffuse group with tenuous existence.". I voted to keep. While I couldn't find a notability policy dealing with organisations or pressure groups, I drew on the "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" criterion, which appears in one form or another in several guidelines. Accordingly, I listed the following sources from British newspapers and books independent of the organisation to testify for their existence and notability:

• The British Film Institute found them worth linking to.
• In 1998, the definitely notable Peter Tatchell stated in The Independent (a British national newspaper) that they paid a fine for him - quite remarkable for a group which doesn't actually exist. [2]
• The Independent has cited them several times, twice in 1995 [3], [4] (describing them as "a libertarian strand of the feminist movement"), and in their 2005 obituary of Andrea Dworkin, stating that the group was created in opposition to her views. [5]
• In 1999, The Sunday Herald (a Scottish newspaper) cited them regarding pornography statistics. [6]
• Cited in "Sexuality" by Joseph Bristow [7],.
• Mentioned in the Spring 1993 "Feminist Review" [8].
• Mentioned in "Knockin' On Heaven's Door: The Hebrew Bible and Cultural Criticism" by Roland Boer [9]
• Mentioned in "Gender and Social Psychology" by Vivien Burr [10].
• Mentioned in "A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men and Popular Culture", edited by Paul Burston and Colin Richardson [11].

SushiGeek's decision to delete came through this morning.

Reading the debate, and looking at the sources, it seems as if Dlyons493's personal opinion that the group doesn't really exist has been given credence without him being asked to prove it. What happened to WP:NOR? Shouldn't he be required to provide some evidence for his personal opinion before having it taken as fact? Isn't that original research?

He also claimed that the group was purely a mouthpiece for Avedon Carol, when even if this were true it wouldn't mean that the group was undeserving of an article, if it was otherwise notable. He also did not respond to my pointing out the list of publications on their website, which numbered five, of which one was written by Avedon Carol and one co-edited; the page lists five other published authors associated with the group. As far as I know, group size alone does not determine which organisations are deserving of Wikipedia articles.

I can provide more sources if necessary; these are just the ones I listed in the AFD debate. Vashti 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete A few of the sources seem a little tangential, but I agree, there has been a miscarriage of wikijustice in this case. It would have been nice if the sources had been included in the article; will you agree to take responsibility for including them in the article? Furthermore, as for User:Dlyons493, while he made a mistake by apparently not even bothering to do a reasonable googling of the group, please bear in mind that WP:V puts the onus on editors to prove that something exists, not the other way around. Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that the AfD was in error; no shame in fixing that error. (As a side note, this whole thing is why strict deletionism is a flawed philosophy - it tends to throw out a lot of babies with the bathwater, and since histories get deleted with the article, it's hard to fix it without the intervention of some very overworked sysops). Captainktainer 11:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

27 April 2006

The Amazing Racist

The Amazing Racist page was deleted, on the grounds, as far as I understand it, that the Amazing Racist is a non-notable person. The Deletion Talk bit is here : [12]A Google search for "Amazing Racist", quotes included, brings up 58,800 results, Yahoo about 27,800. This page [13] has had 83650 views. I've never seen the original article, but I've created a version of how I think it should look on my user page here : User:TheMadTim. The guy is a lot more notable than some of the entries here on Wikipedia. --TheMadTim 11:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : The article should be included. [WP:WEB] - Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - The person in question fulfills this criteria, having been a contributor to a commercial published work.

OR 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. - Do the Google search. You'll see the videos on everything from MySpace to Shoutwire.

[WP:BIO] also states that it can include "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions". You can buy the DVD on Amazon! DVD on sale at Amazon

2nd edit : Why are people saying I hve not given a reason? I have! It fulfills the criteria for inclusion set out in the two wikipedia policies listed above, namely [WP:WEB] and [WP:BIO]. --TheMadTim 09:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Valid AFD, closed properly, no new evidence presented. I'm not convinced by Google hits, videoblogging trolls have a high cruft multiple. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. David | Talk 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure absent new and compelling evidence of notability. Unanimous AfD covered subject as well as article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• This is my first time editing and/or posting anything so if I screw it up don't get to mad.
  Back to the subect at hand- The Amazing Racist. When I saw this skit/video clip I thought it was definitely fake, but I came to wikipedia to find out the story behind it. Alas it was not here. Why not? Because it offended someone. I don't see why he can't have a reference page so when I tell people it is all a joke I can have a credible source. I have read others say it is not noteworthy enough to have a entry, let's be honest here, it is! People are lying through their teeth just because the don't want the article posted. And on the issue of obscurity there are much more obscure pages on wikipedia, Anyway I will end this with what someone else said about the issue and it is something I firmly believe, "Censoring the Amazing Racist is foolhardy and against the original mission of Wikipedia- to provide uncensored and factual data to all who request it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtmavs (talk • contribs)
  • Please sign your posts on this and other Talk pages by adding ~~~~ to the end of your comment.

• For your info, it was not deleted because "it offended someone" but because it fails to establish any encyclopaedic notability, as a single sketch by a single comedian. If you want to know the kind of sketch considered independently notable, see Dead Parrot. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not here to serve as a credible source, it must be based on credible sources. See WP:NOR. Also see WP:AGF, no-one is "lying through their teeth". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted due process was followed, no reason to overturn given. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Sam Blanning^(talk) --CTSWyneken[User talk:CTSWyneken|(talk)]] 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

26 April 2006

Gurunath

wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurunath

I think the decision to keep was incorrect. Firstly there were 3 votes (including NOM) to delete, and 4 votes to keep. However, the 4th keep vote was put in by a confirmed sockpuppet of another voter, and it was put in 8 days after the nomination, while the AfD was supposed to end after 5 days. So technically it was a stalemate vote. Also, this article attracts little to no interest - nobody voted on this issue except users that were directly involved with the article or friends thereof. Keeping an article on an Indian name like Gurunath is like keeping an article on a Western name like Horace. It doesn't make any sense unless it's directed at someone in particular. John has 2 billion hits on google - google hits don't tell you anything about significance in relation to a name. I think that it's a strange move to keep this article on wikipedia. What is the article going to say? "Gurunath is a given name in India."?? Hamsacharya dan 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep kept Fact is, there are disambiguation pages for both John and Horace, though the latter links first to the Roman poet. Disambiguation pages for common names are a common WP practice; Turnstep's closure was in keeping with this trend, as well as reflecting the reality of an evenly split opinion. However heavily the page needs to be edited, the closure has merit and should not be reversed. Xoloz 02:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure While it would have been a stalemate vote sans the sock, that only would end up with a no consensus (which I think should have been the result regardless). And in the case of no consensus, the article should default to keep, lacking a clearly noted violation of Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Darquis
• Endorse closure/keep kept. Even if the votes were a tie, no consensus = keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Darquis and Xaosflux. --David.Mestel 05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Avillia/CVU_Politics

In a current RfC, I am contesting the first deletion of the page as administrative abuse. A administrator who read the RfC restored the page until a consensus was gained on RfC. It was deleted again by the friend of the subject of the RfC, and I recreated it per recommendations from people including the restoring administrator. Tawker, the administrator who first deleted it, has subsequently deleted it once again and protected it. Until there is a consensus at RfC (Hopefully one not made up by friends of the accused, cough), I'm requesting the page is reinstated. If the RfC continued along it's current path and no one dissents, then delete at will. --Avillia_{(RfC vs CVU) 01:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

• The page was restored by an admin mistakenly; see the relevant discussion on the administrator's incidents noticeboard, where he states "Gah, I've screwed up now. I did it on the advice of another user, reactionarily, before looking at all the facts. Now that I see there was lengthy discussion on it (he did not tell me this) I feel like a total douche. :(". Since the page was deleted as a violation of users' privacy, channel policy, common etiquette, and copyright laws, it would make more sense to keep it deleted until the request for comment can decide either way. Note, also, that the relevant request for comment is decidely against publicly posting private IRC logs thus far. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that so far, the only people who have weighted in are decidedly Pro-CVU or members of CVU theirselves. Note also that the channel policy was just created to stop me from discussion. Note that the copyright law has a nice section for 'fair use', if one could even argue as to the copyright ownership. Also, note that common etiquette seems like a oxymoron when I had a page 'violating the privacy' of users in a page directed at the same, just to be targetted for extensive abuse by the magical cabal. --Avillia (RfC vs CVU) 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm anti-cvu, ant not a member of it. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. As Pathoschild says above, it's a "violation of users' privacy, channel policy, common etiquette, and copyright laws". Note that I have no "association" with the CVU whatsoever aside from knowing of it's existance, nor do I hold virtually any opinion on the group either way.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment could someone describe the page, as it is impossible to comment on this without knowing content. Were they of a public channel? Which? Private messages? Which RFC? I'm going to guess the one linked in her sig. How do they pertain to that RFC? Claiming copyright on irc logs seems spurious at best as it depends on what country, etc. Was this page created and posted before the rule was added on 04:50, 25 April 2006? Kotepho 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The logs were taken from #vandalism-en-wp on Freenode, which requires confirmation to join. The channel policy did not explicitly prohibit public logging for the same reason it doesn't explicitly prohibit stalking, warez, or posting personal information— it was considered so obvious that it need not be stated. To confirm this popular opinion, see comments from uninvolved users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TawkerPathosEssjay, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IRC_logs_deletion_and_wheel_waring, and in this discussion, as well as text on m:IRC channels and Freenode's channel guidelines. It has since been modified to explicitly state this obvious detail. If you wish, I see no problem restoring the page without the logs for this discussion; there is plenty of non-log content. // [admin] Pathoschild(^talk/_map) 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. It is not an 'official' wikipedia channel though right? I can see how someone might not know about the policy or might not think it applies. Since it was a private channel, I will agree that it is against "common etiquette" to repost logs without permission, but the instances I saw were not particularly egregious. Still I am not sure why someone had to delete the page. Would not most people's concerns be dealt with by editing them out and anyone else's by deleting them from history? Deleting the page outright seems rather rash. Kotepho 05:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, keep deleted, delete again if necessary In at least some jurisdictions, it's illegal on privacy grounds to even make chat logs, much less publish them [14]. I posted to WT:CSD suggesting that privacy vios (in general) be included on the list of speedy deletion criteria--it's pretty obvious, but it's not listed explicitly at the moment. Per Pathoschild/s, restoring some version with no logs should be ok. Note: I'm not associated with CVU. Phr 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just restored the page without the private logs, since it is the posting of private logs that is at issue and not the page itself. See User:Avillia/CVU_Politics. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted(edit conflict with Pathos' announcement) per Phr and Pathoschild, and, no, I'm not involved with CVU either. If someone wants it restored without the logs, that seems ok. JoshuaZ 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore: the full chat logs are no longer on the page, so there is obviously nothing wrong with it now. --David.Mestel 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - page is now up, so is it really a matter of "restoring"? Anyhow, undelete conditionally, that the logs stayy off the page. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:36 UTC (2006-04-27)
• Allow to keep undeleted conditionally as long as the logs are gone (preferably the diffs deleted so that way only admins can see them) and he does not repost the quotes on the page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverend and The Makers

The following text was written by the article's creater, and copied from User talk:JzG#Reverend and The Makers --Rob 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting this page. Reverend and the Makers are an up and coming British band, gaining quite some notoriety in the British music press and in online forums. Surely the very fact that the page has been recreated so many times is testement to their popularity?

Regarding Wikipedia's WP:NMG page - it states that; "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" - Reverend and the Makers have achieved the following criteria:

"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources." - they have toured nationally for years, and have recently been touring with Arctic Monkeys.

"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." - a number of interviews with the band can be found online and in music publications.

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - the band are a major proponent of what the NME call the 'New Yorkshire' scene - indeed, Wikipedia even has a New Yorkshire page, on which the Makers are already listed.

"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." - Their track, 'Heavyweight Champion of the World', is used by Sky TV's Soccer AM program when highlights of previous matches are shown.

Do you not think this is justifiable enough? They meet not 1, but 4 of Wikipedia's own criteria for inclusion. Captmonkey

• Overturn and list on AfD - I can't see the article content, so I'm going by what I do see above, and I ask it be undeleted, unless there's some reason I'm unaware of. JzG seemed to base the deletion on WP:NMG (see both user's talk pages). You can't speedy based on WP:NMG. That's not policy. A claim of notability needs to be made. If made, AFD should settle the question. It seems, even if there wasn't a claim of notability, the author could easily add one now. AFD will then settle whether it's sufficient and verifiable. --Rob 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD - According to the deletion log, this page was deleted for being non-notable and failing WP:NMG. Neither of these are CSD. (That said, this might be a case of WP:SNOW but I can't see the article to be sure.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I refer the hon. gentleman to criterion A7. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But that's not what's in the deletion log. It says non-notable, it should say "CSD A7". Non-notable is not always the same. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • A7 was in the original speedy tag, not copied into the summary field for some reason. But A7 says non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't know about this. The title of A7 appears to have changed recently. It used to be just "Unremarkable people or groups". Actually, I think the new title is somewhat misleading. (Since non-notability itself isn't a reason to speedy delete, but no claim of notability is.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Had there been a credible claim of notability I would have AfDd it per my usual practice. I may be a rouge admin but I am quite conservative when it comes to A7 applied to apparent bandcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 14:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and put up on AfD From what I've seen above, I think it would meet at least one criteria listed on WP:NMG. It may not, but without the article there, there's hardly a way of knowing. Darquis 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and put up on AfD based on the info given, if it checks out, this may be notable enough, and agree that this probably is not a CsD based on music related criteria. However if it (or a substantially similar article under a different name) was previously AfD'ed then it qualifies for CsD under recreation of previously deleted content... was that the case? ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, but relist only if those sources don't check out initially. The NME claim appears to check out, so...--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hi, I am the author of the offending page. I've been asked to cite sources for my claims above, so, here I am. I'm confused - it's a simple, non-offensive page about a band who are about to break through in the UK! Anyhow, to the points raised:
  1. "Have gone on tour" - [15] - here, buy tickets for their forthcoming National UK tour. Or, perhaps you've seen them on the current crazy sell out (tickets going for £200 on eBay) Arctic Monkeys tour as the support act? Here's a BBC review of a gig they did in February - [16] - they even say "This band (Reverend and the Makers) are the ones to watch".
  2. "Been written about online and offline" - Seriously, do a Google search - you'll turn up half a dozen interviews from different sites. The NME said this about them in a recent review, 'Trust us, before long you will worship at the altar of the Reverend. Hallelujah'.
  3. "Become a prominent representative of a notable style or local scene" - the existing, unmolested, Wikipedia article for the burgeoning New Yorkshire musical scene already lists them. The NME coined this term, and used the Makers as an example of one of the bands in the 'scene'. Think back to 'scenes' like Britpop and NWONW.
  4. "Has performed music for media that is notable" - I'll admit that this is a little tenous, but their track, "Heavyweight Champion Of The World" is being used by the Sky TV production, Soccer AM, as backing music to replays of the previous weeks football action. [17]

  Anyways, they're a band that are just on the cusp of good things - this is no garage band playing gigs in deserted pubs - they just played to several thousand people just last night in Hull. It's up to you guys! :) Captmonkey 19:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Regarding you statement "Seriously, do a Google search". Actually, when you make the article, you should have done that, and cited every single reliable source you could. Never assume people will look up missing information, outside the article. It's basically up to you to include relevant material. So, if/when the article is undeleted, be sure to include it. While anybody can do a google search, not all results are useful. Some are just promotional and self-written. It's really up to the article author, to pick out the high quality ones, and include them in the article. While I criticized the deletion of this article, I am certain, that if the article had the relevant information, it would never have been deleted. --Rob 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care overmuch, happy to have it listed on AfD. More effort seems to have gone into pleading the case than went into the article, which is always a bit frustrating. But do note again the comment made by the creator that the band are about to break through in the UK. That was how I read it, too. Bands which are "about to break through" very often don't. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete add the cites. Put on AfD if it still looks dodgy. They're not the only ones to leave the cites for later and get deleted in between. Perhaps the author should have read Wikipedia:Why should I care? first - an easy mistake to make. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Having spot-checked the deleted versions, this certainly seems to have qualified under speedy-delete criterion A7 since the article itself made no claim to notability that I found. Send it to AFD as a disputed speedy-deletion but I'm skeptical about its chances. Some real evidence will have to be presented that this is more than the garage band that the article made it seem. Remember that we don't cover bands that are about to break thru - we cover bands that have broken thru. Rossami (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, a number of criteria in WP:MUSIC are written specifically to include bands lacking mainstream commercial success. Notability<>fame+sales, necessarily. --Rob 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ...but there's no rush. I fully agree with you, but I think the "notability without commercial impact" thing needs to be evaluated by the good old fashioned "test of time". --kingboyk 07:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • "there's no rush" is not what a wiki is about (that's more of a Britanica approach). Also, the test we will evaluate the article by is WP:MUSIC, which, if the creator's claims can be substantiated, the article will pass. --Rob 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Disagree, sorry. There are differing opinions of what wiki is about. Being up-to-the-second up-to-date is not necessarily one of them. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Request: If admins wish to wait the full week before removing "protected deleted" status, can I suggest its undeleted immediately, but to a user-subpage of the creator. That way, he can fix it up properly (maybe get some feedback), before its put back in article space, hopefully avoiding the need for re-deletion. There's no point in AFD voters wasting their time evaluating the old version, if its going to be substantially changed shortly. --Rob 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• List at AFD (where I shall recommend Delete) As a popular music buff, I'm usually quite lenient on band articles. However, having the luxury of being able to look at the article, it's main claim to notability is that the band are touring as support to the currently very fashionable Arctic Monkeys. They don't even have a record deal. I think at a bare minimum a new band ought to have a record deal to be notable. (There are of course exceptions, such as when the members are already notable, or historical bands who became notable through later activities of their members or some other reasons.) --kingboyk 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Changed from keep deleted to relist. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is DRV, not AFD. So, the issue is whether the article qualified for a speedy under a7. A claim was made. If you contest it, you should take up the matter on an AFD. You said "it's main claim to notability is...". Hence, you have conceded the speedy was invalid, since you conceded a claim was made. The rest of your sentence will be relevant at the AFD. It is fundamentally wrong for admins to ignore policy, and remove content, without community consensus. --Rob 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, you got me on this one. I was thinking about this in bed last night (sad I know!) and I realised I'd snookered myself somewhat on this point. You're absolutely right. I wouldn't have speedy deleted it. I will therefore amend my recommendation. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• i have drawn it by myself using a common WP picture, pls undelete.--Nerd 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, images cannot be undeleted. I'm unsure whether a copy would be available from one of WP's many mirrors. Xoloz 16:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• If he still has a copy he can reupload it and properly tag it as self created perhaps. (General comment, I'm not familiar with the image nor have I checked the deletion history). --kingboyk 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

23 April 2006

List of films about phantom or sentient animals

• Was deleted after a vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films about phantom or sentient animals. The vote was proposed by User:Jack Cain. After proposing and before deletion was approved he removed the link to its companion articleList of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects. This list fits in with many other lists in the category Lists_of_films like
  • List of books and films about hobos and freighthopping
  • List of animal movies
  • List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects
  • List of films using the Wilhelm scream
  • Submarine film
  • List of films with disabled protagonists
  • List of films with TV shows and other films in them
  • List of movies featuring United States Marines
  • List of films featuring independent body parts
  • etc. I don't see why this list was singled out? Jooler 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Closure endorsed/keep deleted One explanation for why the other lists are still around is that they haven't been AfD'ed yet. I understand your confusion and desire for consistency, Jooler, but generally, arguing "Keep Questionable article X because we have Questionable article Y is not a very powerful point. AfD is by its nature piecemeal, and that means that some articles will always be deleted before others of their kind. Here, we have a valid AfD, and I cannot consider this "plea for consistency" as new evidence, because doing so would open up nearly every deletion to constant revoting. AfD works one article at a time. Xoloz 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted. Agree with Xoloz. Jooler's reasoning, while understandable and very common here, leads to a listcruft race to the bottom.
• Endorse closure I can see why you would think these other lists are evidence to keep the one brought here. However, Wikipedia doesn't include articles/lists because other articles/lists are substandard, but rather tries to raise those below standard articles up to standard (or failing that, remove them). Further, this was a unanimous consensus; not a single person spoke in defense of the article. Darquis 17:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have voted to oppose if I'd have seen the vote. It was very quick. It was deleted within 5 days of nomination. But what if I recreate the page? What's the difference? There is no logic here. Jooler 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Five days, as far as I can tell, might not be totally standard (I see many AfDs run for 7), but it's certainly not quick. Darquis 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Five days is the standard. Debates do run longer, because of backlog, but it is absolutely typical and just for uncontentious AfDs to be closed at their fifth day. Xoloz 18:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It was too quick for me to realise it had happened! BTW Just to clarify - I didn't create or even contribute to this page, I only discovered it the day before it was nominated for deletion. Jooler 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Nothing out of process; AfD ran for five days, no quicker than usual. If the page is recreated then it'll be speedy deleted as CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material.  RasputinAXP  c 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • that makes no sense. If it was deleted because it was badly written, then if it is recreated and written well, why should it be deleted, when it fits in perfectly well with similar lists of film. Jooler 17:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Because it still will have the same inherent problems that caused it's original deletion. I think the main issue here is going to be "why do we need this" or "why is this signifigant" Darquis 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Further - the specified reasons for deletion were - "Pointless, badly formatted and highly subjective article Jack Cain 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)" - Pointless is a POV and if it is pointless why didn't Mr Cain also nominate List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects for the same reason? - badly formatted - can easily be remedied. and highly subjective - Eh? How subjective? Any more subjective than List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects or List of films featuring independent body parts? The nominator and voters did not give due consideration to how this list fitted in with other similar lists. Jooler 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not quite how Wiki works. I see why you would come to the conclusion that those other articles make the one in question acceptable. If anything, any articles which suffer from the same failings this article did will be nominated in their own time as people come across them and decide they're unsuited for WikiDarquis 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • But what exactly were the faillings? Ive just contended the reasons for nomination above. List_of_films_about_possessed_or_sentient_inanimate_objects has existed for three years, had loads of contributions and in all that time no-one seems to have come to the conclusion that it should be deleted. I don't know how long List of films about phantom or sentient animals was around for, but if the only problem that made it any different from the other lists was bad formatting then that could easilyhave been remedied. Jooler 18:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, list of two arbitrary and superficially unrelated subclasses of an arbitrary subject genre. Per policy, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information (also potentially WP:NOR. Per process, valid AfD, validly closed. Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Proceduraly valid. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Just zis Guy's marvelously concise explanation. Postdlf 05:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Xoloz and JzG. FloNight ^talk 09:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal

Submitted by Fresheneesz 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The page in question with forced no-redirect

Out of process deletion (called "merge" by the AfD closer User:JzG). I was told I should take this issue up here, after posting it for unprotection

• The consensus was 1 for delete, 1 for delete or merge, 1 for merge, 3 for no delete, no merge - also there was a vote with 7 additional people that did not want deletion or merge. Most of those additional people are not countable, but I think a couple should be countable (I'm not fully sure about the policy regarding this).
• After deletion failed, the 2 for deletion changed their opinion to merge - this leaves a 3 vs 3 not counting the 7 votes.
• I prematurely closed the issue - wrongly thinking that voting matters on wikipedia...
• JzG then prematurely closed the issue (the issue he himself put up, which is bad form I'm told), getting 1 revert from me, and 1 revert from User:A_Transportation_Enthusiast. He then protected the page.
• JzG called his deletion a "merge" when he actually merged only one sentence: history record of merge

1. Before any of this, JzG endoresed moving UniModal to Personal rapid transit/UniModal - I believe this is against wikipedia policy
2. JzG cites that the UniModal page is "fiction", but even if that classification is accurate - doesn't it deserve its place among other "fictions" like freedom ship, and reactionless drive ?
3. JzG says I solicited votes. This is not true.
4. Omegatron _talk agrees that it should "probably be its own page". However Omegatron has noted that my actions are not considered exemplary. My ignorance of official policy is my bane in this case.

All in all, JzG has shown a lack of patience, a lack of the knowlege an admin should have, and a bias toward SkyTran that confuses me. I haven't gotten an answer from JzG as to why its so pressing that that article be deleted and stay deleted. As a final note: I would be perfectly happy with cooling my heels for a little bit, as long as the page eventually becomes undeleted.

People involved:

User:JzG

me

User:A_Transportation_Enthusiast

User:Avidor

These are talk pages where the issue was discussed:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_and_uncooperation_of_an_admin

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal

Talk:Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22_SkyTran/UniModal_uncooperative_admin

Unprotect - AFD has no bearing on whether something is kept or merged. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 07:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid venue. This is not a discussion of a deletion, this is about keeping vs merging a page, and does not belong on DRV. Use WP:3O or WP:RFC. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it belongs on WP:RFPP, as it was improperly protected. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 13:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who saw this on RFP and directed him here. This isn't about whether something got protected or not, it's about whether the deletion process was properly followed, which IS a matter for DRV. If folks don't care to evaluate the AFD process, then maybe AN/I is a better venue. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • The AFD result was keep, as a merge is a form of keep. JzG revert warring and then protecting as a redirect was improper, as an AFD never says anything about merge vs. keep. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse afd outcome (and endorse admin) - "merge what little is verifiable" seems the best call possible given the messy afd. JzG has explained the reasoning in detail behind the closure on WP:AN, which made sense to me. (Yes, ideally he shouldn't have closed it himself, but hardly "bad form", especially as the result was different to his preference)) However, removing an afd notice from an article under discussion, calling it an "idiotic removal thing"[18] is quite bad form in my view. The number of complaints about the result looks like fourm shopping to me, and also your comment about being happy to cool heels (so long as the result goes your way) does not indicate a willingness to accept consensus to me. MartinRe 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(interjection): I have appologized for removing the AfD notice prematurely many times now - my integrity is not what is in question. "does not indicate a willingness..." - that is twisting my words and is not what I meant. Fresheneesz 07:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some replies to the above:

  Point 1: This is an appropriate forum, as a review of a AfD decision (see the header), although it has already been reviewed at WP:AN and my close supported. I did say that AfDs can be revewed by DRV. They can (or if not we need to change the header).

  The first removal of the AfD tag by Fresheneesz is omitted from the above summary. So is most of what User:Omegatron said, which was broadly in support of my actions. The discussion at WP:AN is not discussed, but read it and you'll see it backed my close.

  Point 2: The AfD consensus was merge, by my reckoning, see the Talk page of the AfD, and that went against my preference to delete. The "votes" for keep were almost all unhistoried or unregistered users, in a section titled "vote here" added out of process by User:Fresheneesz, who also removed the AfD notice and then "closed" the AfD as "unanimous keep" based solely on this section; per usual practice these "votes" (AfD is not a vote) which were evidently solicited externally were discounted. I merged. I checked the contents of the article against the similar contents in the main article and ensured that the externally verifiable parts were covered. The main article already included much of this, including the artist's rendering which illustrated the article.

  Point 3: There is no such thing as UniModal. It is a "concept" by one man, who is trying to get investment for it. The subject is covered well in personal rapid transit. The creator, Douglas Malewicki, is quite open about the fact that there is not even a prototype yet. This was a two thousand word article on something which has no objective reality at all, which was presented in somewhat florid terms, and which in my view amounts to a POV fork of personal rapid transit, from which some of the more inflated claims made in the Uni Modal article have been removed as essentially unverifiable.

  Personal Rapid Transit is itself an essentially untried concept; this is the analagous article to the concept articles freedom ship and reactionless drive. There are some pilot programmes, and one or two systems slated to be built, but even those which are said to be under construction bear little resemblance to the widespread urban transit system described in personal rapid transit. SkyTran is not only a version of this untried technology, but it is a version which makes claims of speed and other paramenters unmatched by a the few test installations. That is not to say it's impossible, but it represents the bleeding edge of an unproven technology. And without investors it will never happen. WP:NOT a storefront.

  Point 4: This has been discussed at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, User talk:Omegatron, Wikipedia:Mediation cabal and my talk page.

  Point 5: I am being accused of "ignorance of policy" by someone who removed an AfD tag, set up a "vote here" section in an AfD, "closed" an AfD with substantial editorialising, and set up this rather idiosyncratic DRV format - as well as starting a mediation cabal case without inviting me along (I only found out about it by accident). But everybody knows that us rouge admins don't care about policy...

  So, Endorse redirect or overturn and delete this sales pitch for a hypothetical version of an unproven technology. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as redirect. Given all the self-aggrandizing gaming the system that went on, I think this was probably the right course of action. Would've been better for appearances for someone other than JzG to push the actual buttons, but the end result I think is right. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll have to accept this consensus. I thought I finnally had some support. However, it does seem that everyone reviewing this is looking at my faults rather than whether the article on Skytran deserves some discussion before its merged. Thanks for everyone's input. Fresheneesz 07:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it personally. When (and possibly before) the system is built, it'll get its own article. Stephen B Streater 08:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Katefan0. But even with JzG being the one to close it, I still don't think it ended up wrong. Oh, also, wrong venue. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes and Userbox

Those pages were deleted, as were their talk pages, and protected afterwards. The issue I have is that the redirects run in loops (in one case, at least, the talk page redirects to the main article) and the redirects really ought to be running to WP:Userbox and WP:Userboxes, since this is a Wikipedia specific term. Alternatively, we ought to be saying on Userbox that this is a Wikipedia specific term and then redirecting to WP:Userbox. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) This is not an undeletion request. This is a redirection request.

• This has been the subject of a recent DRV debate. I brought the odd result to closer Brenneman's attention, and he has said he would attend to it. For the record, I support the redirect to projectspace as reasonable. Xoloz 19:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all! WP:ASR wikipedia specific terms should not be in the main space at all, even as redirects (unless with the WP:xxx notation). We've had this discussion before I think, let's not do it again. Why can userboxes just go away and die somewhere? --Doc ^ask? 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I indicated above you, Doc, we have in fact had this discussion before. Since redirects are cheap and for convenience's sake, one wonders why anyone would spend anytime arguing against any even remotely useful ones. Xoloz 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Because, I don't think we should allow redirects from article to project space unless prefixed with 'WP'. I know there are others, but I would vote to delete them too. (And, in any case, userboxes are not 'remotely useful'. --Doc ^ask? 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, there are hundreds of others, many of which receive a huge amount of use every single day. Where would we be without NPOV? Your revolutionary proposal for mass-deleting well-established, useful, and harmless redirects should be formally proposed with a new policy if you want it to ever happen, not just assumed on a whim without any consensus support. And if it's userboxes that you don't think are useful, you should be voting to delete Wikipedia:Userboxes, not the redirects to that page. Once the userboxes page is deleted, deleting the redirects will be a natural side-effect. Why be sneaky about it? -Silence 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• On the one hand this was a work-to-order where I did nothing beyond the minimum required. On the other hand, the current state makes no sense but I'd felt it was a harmless enough glitch that it could wait until I archived my talk page and cleaned up everything else I'd forgotten to do. On the third hand I was hoping that by that time no-one would care about userboxes and that everyone would be arguing about if the onion tied to one's belt should be purple or brown. - brenneman^{L} 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's easier for users that was. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Purple, 'cause it's prettier!!! Xoloz 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per WP:ASR --pgk^(talk) 06:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, WP:ASR is not a speedy deletion criterion. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on RFD. Process is important. "Cross-namespace redirect" and WP:ASR are not speedy deletion criteria. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. They already went through RfD, as I recall, and were deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Let's try to keep this project focused and article namespace reasonably clear. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Shouldn't be in article space. David | Talk 13:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted, as further debate would be inconclusive, and it was previously deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted- cross-namespace redirects are NOT to be kept. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per it's easier to get to the userboxes if they are. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• There indeed was a Review on this recently; like Xoloz I am a bit surprised it was closed the way it was. Some remarks:
  1. Cross-namespace redirects on WP are not only allowed, some are encouraged. Every WP: and WT: -style redirect sits in the Main space and points to a page in the Wikipedia space. These are usually non-controversial. The governing guideline is Wikipedia:Shortcut.
  2. There are also a smaller number of Main→WP redirects which are not of the WP: -style. Examples are NPOV, Wikipedia is not paper, Disambiguation, No personal attacks, Assume good faith, ArbCom, and CotW. There seems to be some disagreement about them; Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Precedents#Should redirects to other spaces be kept? suggests that their suitability be determined on a case-by-case basis.
  3. Bearing in mind the general trend to keep redirects to high-traffic WP space pages, especially those known by a particular catch phrase or term, it may not be unreasonable to keep, say, one page as a redirect; perhaps Userboxes→Wikipedia:Userboxes. I do not think having all sorts of variations is either needed or desirable.
  4. Related matters: a) original RfDs here b) an aside: the comment above that cross-space redirects are never speedy candidates is untrue—Main→User space redirects are speedy candidates (R2).

Whatever the outcome of this review, I do hope that no one relists this yet once more: it's been discussed way more than any such triviality has any right to be discussed. Please respect whatever consensus forms here. —Encephalon 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete as redirect. (And list at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if anyone seriously thinks this should be deleted, since speedy-deletion is obviously inappropriate policy abuse regardless.) This is a very useful and practical redirect to have, much like CotW and the countless other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia editor projects and activities, and there's next to no possibility of it being searched for by someone looking for something other than the Wikipedia project, since "userbox" is not a common word, phrase, or abbreviation (unlike the vast majority of other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia, like disambiguation, a real word, NPOV, a valid abbreviation, and assume good faith, a not-uncommon phrase). Moreover, it's truly hilarious to invoke WP:ASR as evidence for cross-namespace redirects being unacceptable, considering that "WP:ASR" is itself a cross-namespace redirect!! ("WP:" is technically part of the article namespace, not the Wikipedia namespace, but is tolerated as a matter of convenience.) Furthermore, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references itself makes no mention of redirects of this sort being a bad thing, and, for the final nail in the coffin, here is a list of cross-namespace redirects which point to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: Mention of Wikipedia in articles, Avoid self-references, WP:NSR, Avoid self-reference, WP:SELF, Avoid self references, Avoid self reference, WP:ASR. :) And if that wasn't enough, here's a list of cross-namespace redirects to this very page, Wikipedia:Deletion review: WP:VFU, WP:VfU, Votes for undeletion, VfU, WP:RFU, WP:DRV, Deletion Review, WP:Deletion Review, VFU. This deletion is a farce, completely unjustifiable by any policy, guideline, convention, or purpose beneficial to Wikipedia, and should be reversed for the same reasons a deletion of ArbCom or WP:V would be. -Silence 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Hardly notable enough to be even mentioned anywhere in the main space. --InShaneee 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Er, are you aware that these were redirects, not articles? Countless quasi-noteworthy Wikipedia projects have cross-namespace redirects; their point is not to assert notability, but to provide a useful shortcut for users who aren't willing or able to type out lengthy titles like "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" (NPOV) and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones" (WP:TROP). -Silence 01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Global_Resource_Bank_Initiative

Come on whats wrong with this article? I have started work on Wikipedia recently and am a big fan as a user. Would like to get more involved (and will be, belive me) tried to put down this article after a original article about GRB which had been on Wiki for many years (not written by me) was deleted some time ago. Yes that article was to be improved I agree but not deleted? And this one is totally correct and usefull for Wiki users I belive...It looks like the delete maffia is destroing the core idea that articles should have a chance to develop if they are not totally illegal, nonsens or spam.

11:17, 22 April 2006 Redvers deleted "Global Resource Bank Initiative" (CSD-G4 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank)

• Undelete. Put it back on, its good info...--Swedenborg 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I was the one who tagged it as a CSD-G4 with the added bonus of "admin, please check previous version for clear G4" which I'd have to assume meant it matched.  RasputinAXP  c 13:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to AfD. There has been additions to the article since it was last AfDed that make it worthy of a second hearing, the version as it was prior to the AfD is here. It was previously deleted as original research/vanity, and I haven't checked any of the additional information to see if it has the same problems, but I don't think it will harm to spend another week at AfD. Thryduulf 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That version looks to be identical to the one reposted.  RasputinAXP  c 21:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Changes made to this article (which is being constantly reposted under various titles by User:Swedenborg) haven't altered the fundamental reasons it was originally deleted for: original research and vanity. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf. If he can make out a sufficient, anyone at AfD might; that provides basis for a re-evaluation in itself. Xoloz 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf and Xoloz. JoshuaZ 16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. What additions? There's a lot of vague assertions that "people have been talking about something like this", but no evidence whatsoever that anyone has paid any attention to these people. Valid G4, why should AfD have to waste time on it again? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A little bit of paraphrasing and other forms of hand waving do not address the core problem identified by the AfD of the article being original research. Come back when some reliable sources can be provided for the material. --Allen3 ^talk 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid G4 and valid (though low-participation) original AfD which correctly identified the Original Research problem with this article. David | Talk 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Waldo's wallpaper

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldo's wallpaper

should not have been deleted. I got screwed out of my vote. Delete digital blasphemy. 0waldo 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This article was reposted after having been deleted, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Keep Deleted. Nationalparks 02:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• I looked at the AfD, saw you nowhere. Is there a previous AfD you're talking about? Anyway, AfD isn't a vote, but an attempt to get a consensus. And the overwhelming consensus, with no evidence provided to the contrary, was to delete because it was non notable. Keep Deleted Darquis 03:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Overwhelming consensus to delete and a proper AFD. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. sour grapes ≠ "digital blasphemy". KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. There was a clear consensus to delete, the debate ran for the usual length of time and the notice was placed properly. Following the debate the discussion was closed correctly and the decision implemented apropriately. The page was then recreated as a 1-line sub-stub that would have been eligable for Speedy deletion under criteria, A1 (no context) and A3 (no significant content), as well as G4 (recreation of previously deleted content), which was the criterion under which it was speedily deleted. There was nothing improper in any of this. Thryduulf 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted A nearly-unanimous AfD should not be overturned on the basis of such an impolite, evidence-barren request. Xoloz 16:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD result was valid per process and per policy. Owaldo needs to remain WP:CIVIL. Also, with a username like that, Owaldo's neutrality is questionable. Just zis Guy you know? 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without a question. // Gargaj 10:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Homestarmy 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No evidence presented that it meets WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nothing to overturn previous decision. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

22 April 2006

Template:Kosovo-geo-stub

Please note SfD debate from December 2005

Please also note: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#A_problem_which_refuses_to_go_away from 22 April, 2006.

No argumet We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub, category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia

For more information see rez 1244, and UN document wich is declaretin Kosovo as Provinc in Balkan.

We need this teplare for the Kosovo geography.

• I can't really understand this, but I believe its poster intended it as a nomination, so I have moved it to page-top. Xoloz 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Having made sense of this, it seems nominator is arguing for a stub for geographic locations in Kosovo. Stub-types are provided for convenience, and are not intended to become embroiled in political debates. The existence of a stub type does not imply (or deny) recognition of the independence of a disputed entity. This template seems appropriate. Xoloz 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Xoloz, seems like a useful stub type. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Pages on Kosovo have a rather... shall we say, enthusiastic following, so this stub will probably be good to use. Note that it seems related (judging from the discussion) to other Ksovo stubs which recently have been deleted. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep firmly deleted. Please read the reasons for deletion in the first place. This template was created, deleted through due process at SFD, then re-created and speedily deleted. Because of the - shall we say heated - situation regarding this region, this is an edit-war magnet. Many of the articles that this template was placed on when it was first created instantly erupted into edit wars. The same occurred when it was re-created. Lengthy discussions have taken place over it at WP:WSS/P, which favoured a compromise situation until such time as there is a final UN resolution on the long-term status of Kosovo. You have two options regarding this template: 1) reinstate it and be prepared to protect every article that it is used on, as well as the template itself and its category; 2) keep it deleted and continue to use the compromise situation which every editor of Kosovo-related articles except for Hipi Zhdripi seems prepared to comply with. Those compromise measures call for stubs relating to the geography of Kosovo to be marked with {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}} (which, Hipi Zhdripi should note, is in line with Kosovo's status according to Article 5 of Annex 2 of UNSC Resolution 1244), but not be marked with the clearly POV and goading Serbia-stub. As such, stubs contained in the Category:Serbia and Montenegro geography stubs fall into three groups - those subcategorised as being in Serbia, those subcategorised as being in montenegro, and those not subcategorised, which, by default, are in Kosovo. if and when there is a final decision on Kosovo's status, this compromise situation will be revised. For now, though, it is the only situation which seems to keep the majority of editors happy. Be warned that if Kosovo-geo-stub is re-created, it will almost certainly appear back at WP:SFD within hours (though probably not at my hands), and will almost certainly be deleted again. You might also like to note that the deletion of this template was investigated at User:Hipi Zhdripi's request by User:RobertG, who refused to reinstate the template. A look at User talk:Hipi Zhdripi may also be informative, given its long evidence of HZ's fractious association with other editors on many articles dealing with Kosovo. Grutness...wha? 08:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete if we have 50 or more stub articles to put it on (which we don't!). We should not be intimidated by edit warriors: if they create havoc they should be blocked. --Mais oui! 08:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't have anywhere near the threshold number of articles used by WP:WSS as a standard for the creation of geo-stub templates (which is 65, not 50). Grutness...wha? 08:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Is 38 not quite close to 50? I suppose it is subjective. But if Kosovo-fans want to create at least 12 more valid geo stub articles, then I will happily endorse the undeletion of the stub template. --Mais oui! 09:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • why 50? The threshold for the creation of geo-stubs is 65. And there are only 37, not 38. 37/65 isn't even 60% of threshold.(Actually, there are 35 - two of them had merger notices on them and the resulting article was considerably larger than a stub). Grutness...wha? 09:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep firmly deleted per Grutness. This is a very problematic template, and re-creation of it will lead to edit wars over its use, its name, and any flag / insignia it may come to use. 1) For one thing, WP:WSS does not approve new -geo-stub templates if they'll be used on less than 65 articles. This one falls into that category. 2) Stub templates, or the use of them, should not become the object of edit wars. This one is sure to become just that. We don't have templates for South Ossetia, the TRNC, Nagorno-Karabakh or similar examples. A template for Transnistria is being debated for deletion for this exact reason. 3) Most importantly: Keeping or deleting this template is currently being discussed on WP:WSS, like we do all other stub templates, and this nomination is a disruption of an ongoing procedure. See the WP:WSS/P page for that discussion which is actually quite thorough. WP:WSS is treating Kosovo like all similar cases. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Grutness. David | Talk 11:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Grutness and Valentinian. Breaking the stub policy to feed the flames of a raging edit war seems like a bad policy decision on many levels. --CComMack 19:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted per Grutness Valentinian and CComMack. templates had to be changed on some articles every day while this was being used becuase of edit warring. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Grutness, persuasive arguments. Just zis Guy you know? 10:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The stub was deleted through process and does not meet any of the thresholds set. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 08:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Grutness. Her Pegship 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the reasons Grutness presents are clearly compelling, and counteract any claims of usefulness the stub template might have. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Simon Strelchik

• First
• Second
• Third

There has never been an AFD that showed consensus to delete this article and I'm not seeing a CSD that this falls under. I suggest that it should be merged into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Kotepho 04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me like it's a bad idea to delete something because it's a vandal target, but at the same time I understand that the presence of a bunch of POV pushers can make a proper AFD very difficult. Restore and merge seems like a very reasonable solution based on the AFDs, so I'll go with it.-Polotet 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• The second AfD was so thoroughly sock infested that any meaningful outcome was impossible. I wouldn't object to a temporary undeletion to allow a merge with Simon Strelchik becoming a redirect (I fear it will need to be protected). Thryduulf 11:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should clarify that I support Curps' actions fully, imho they are a good example of a good application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion endorsed The VaunghWatch people are a known group of vigorous POV-promoters. Any debate clean of sockpuppets has supported the deletion of similar material (there have been at least two relatively clean discussions of such content at DRV.) While not ideally-in-process, Curps action was in response to DRV precedent and reached the right result on the merits in a case where process was being deliberately undermined by a specific faction. I will support Curps' administrative discretion in this case. Xoloz 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and Merge as suggested. Numerous precedents. David | Talk 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary restore and merge per Thryduulf. I think the consensus among non-sockpuppets in the 2nd AfD (the last one with any real debate) was for merging, but given the propensity for abuse by the huge sockfarm I think leaving the history around once the merge is done will just invite endless reverts. I volunteer to perform the merge; I have no particular view pro or con Simon Strelchik and I've become familiar with the topic by now, so if it's restored, someone please let me know and I'll start merging it. Mangojuice 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, last AfD was a sockfest and my attempt to have a proper AfD was disrupted (along with the entire AfD process, thanks to the use of a miusconfigured open proxy) by a sock of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curps did the Right Thing. Just zis Guy you know? 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain this reasoning? If someone AFDs George Bush and Squidward wants to have fun with the debate we will just speedy George Bush? Kotepho 20:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, because unlike the subject of this article George Bush has succeeded in being elected to a significant office, and the article is edited by many people with no history of sockpuppet usage. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary Restore/Merge Merge with New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election , but delete the history, or the sock puppetry will get revert happy again.Darquis 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The second AFD was a sockpuppet fest -- of PROVEN sockpuppets. Kill it dead. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Calton. Ardenn 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete First AfD seems clear and relatively sockfree; and that was in March. I don't think many things are WP:POINT, but the other two nominations seem to be. Maybe it should be merged, but that decision I'll take when I can see it. Septentrionalis 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Failed candidates generally do not get their own articles, and the one claim of independent notability was not verified. Note that VaughanWatch is up to 52 sockpuppets so far, and has deteriorated into mostly making personal attacks on user talk pages. I can see no reason why Simon Strelchik should not be listed in New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and have no opinion on the best way to achieve that outcome. Thatcher131 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Besides the substantive issue of notability, which I believe attaches to major party candidates for Federal office in Canada, I am very suspicious of rapid multiple AfD nominations (WP:POINT is relevant here) followed by a speedy deletion despite very obvious lack of consensus. The votes and comments in the first and third AfDs typically showed reasoning and did not look like typical rapid, vote with no comment type puppetfests. Allegations that the discussions were invalid due to sockpuppet invasion need to be proven (e.g., CheckUser and similar tools). I don't believe there has even been a consensus to delete this or other major party candidate articles. MCB 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Checkuser was used; VaughanWatch has 52 known sockpuppets and many of them were involved in this AFD. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• As I said in the original debates, the current consensus on unelected candidates is to merge them into a single party list, because that's the best way anybody's found so far to balance the competing interpretations of notability. If VaughanWatch's known socks are discounted in this case, the consensus was clearly in favour of doing that, but it's also clear that the VaughanWatch sockpuppets aren't going to let this have an honest, undisrupted AFD (cf. Elliott Frankl, where even after a merge consensus was established they simply ignored it.) And while the merge solution isn't ideal, until we can figure out a better consensus position we're kind of stuck with it. My primary vote every time has been merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; I still stand by that. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note I recounted the first AfD, discarding the IP from Bell Canada and 2 of the 3 VaughanWatch socks. That leaves us with 5 keep, 2 merge and 3 delete. However, 2 of the keeps were predicated on being able to verify that he was a founding member of Save the children; IIRC, this was never established per WP:RS, so those votes change to merge; plus one of the keep votes changed to delete in the second AfD. That gives 2 keep, 4 merge and 4 delete. Thatcher131 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Joe says in the second AfD that his being a founder of Free the Children (NOT Save the Children) is cited by the Canadian Jewish News and by the CBC. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The two references are somewhat unreliable:

1) The Canadian Jewish News article is essentially interviews of three candidates -- want to bet that their information comes courtesy of the candidates themselves?

2) The CBC ref is a candidates' information page, and I'd bet folding money all the information in it was supplied by the candidates. Certainly the photos of Strelchik and Kadis used in both articles are identical (Maybe Reale sprung for the quantity discount at the photographer's). --Calton | Talk 07:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The AfD quotes WP:V: ""Verifiability" does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSinclair (talk • contribs) 08:12 26 April 2006 - User's 8th edit, ignoring the points made in favor of immediate Wikilawyering instead. Seems oddly familiar. --Calton (UTC)

Also I looked at the Checkuser page, and some of the people labelled sockpuppets weren't actually found by checkuser to be such. This includes CasanovaAlive and Munckin. I count 9 Keeps therefore, check the page yourself [here]. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Which of these did you include?

• This user is a confirmed sock puppet of VaughanWatch, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely.

• Blink484 (talk · contribs)
• Aufbauten (talk · contribs)
• Leotardo (talk · contribs)
• Macredi (talk · contribs)
• Slendidlydelicious (talk · contribs)
• UndergroundRailroad (talk · contribs)
• Moonslight (talk · contribs)
• GoldRhymer (talk · contribs)

• And of the ones you claim not to be sockpuppets:

• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs) - Indefinitely blocked: Nineteen edits total, all related to the VaughnMess
• Munckin (talk · contribs) -Indefinitely blocked: Caught using a misconfigured open proxy while trying to expunge the third Strelchik AFD from the AFD page [19]. One of the reports on him included this warning

• If you look at the accounts Mackensen blocked through his log, you will see that VaughanWatch's socks tend to have 50-100 edits (mostly minor copyedits) all on the same day, then they go dormant until they start posting on Simon Strelchik AfDs or other Vaughan issues. Munchkin looks very much the same. Thatcher131 11:16, 21 April 2006 Hmm, that behavior pattern looks familiar.

Can't imagine why anyone would think they were among the 50+ sockpuppets of VaughnWatch. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Many primarily voted Keep:

• Samaritan (talk · contribs)
• Brisvegas (talk · contribs)
• Bearcat (talk · contribs)
• Hyperbole (talk · contribs)
• Luigizanasi (talk · contribs)
• MCB (talk · contribs)
• NDP Johnny (talk · contribs)
• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs)
• Munckin (talk · contribs)
• VaughanWatch (talk · contribs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GSinclair (talk • contribs) 08:12 26 April 2006 - User's 8th edit. I'll bet you're surprised. (UTC) - User now blocked as a VaughanWatch sock.

• Hmmm, 2 sockpuppets and their sockpuppeteer -- already pointed out -- are on that list, provided by a brand-new user with eight edits. Say, isn't one of the definitions of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? --Calton | Talk 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Further note: NDP Johnny (talk · contribs) was at the time a new user, who was solicited to vote on the 2nd AfD by yet another VaughnWatch sockpuppet (VWSP) CanadianElection (talk · contribs) [20]. I noticed this because GSinclair 5th and 7th edits were a solicitation to vote here, made directly under the note by the VWSP.
• Son, the general rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Just some advice. --Calton | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the block above you have, I think, conclusive proof of why Curps was right. There is simply no chance of discussing this objectively due to VaughanWatch's determination to keep this article (maybe VaughanWatch is Strelchik, who knows?) and above all his contempt for Wikipedia. This is beyond farce and well into "screw you". Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• VaughanWatch is the name of a website which publishes partisan views on local politics in Vaughan; Strelchik appears to be one of VW's endorsed candidates, but he's not directly involved in the site AFAIK. Most of us following this matter have been operating from the assumption that VaughanWatch and his socks were Paul DeBuono, the president of the organization, and not Strelchik himself. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're also misrepresenting my vote; I pretty consistently communicated each time that my preference was to merge into a party candidates list, per the existing precedent on unelected Canadian political candidates. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete It was obviously inappropriate for user:JzG to rule Speedy Keep on an article that he nominated for deletion, without any discussion on the AfD outside of his own contributions. The AfD was up for a only a little over an hour, and had already survived 2 AfDs. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit was less than an hour ago, at 02:48. Thirty edits, with the first 29 a series of minor, rapid-fire, and occasionally self-reverting edits. I find this a wee bit suspicious. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no stake in this. Just count the Keep votes, that's what I did. Doublesuede 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Uh huh. Less than an hour here, and you zeroed straight in on this issue, did all the research, and found exactly the right place to post your utterly unbiased results. Right. Of course. Oh, and to correct your statement, one of the AfD's this article "survived" is the one whose integrity we are discussing right now. Rhetoric teachers, we now have GFPL-licensed example of "Begging the question" for you, available right here. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Immediately semi-protect the AFD and the article. I can't make any sense of above arguements. Vandalism and sockpuppets are never a reason for deletion. --Rob 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion As if three afds weren't enough. At least some of the sockpuppets have been shut down. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game)

This section has become too long. The DRV discussion on this article has been moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) (second DRV). Please post all comments there. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

21 April 2006

Category:User kon

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_27#Template:User_kon

and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_26#Category:User_kon

Although the Tfd pointed to the Cfd and vice versa the outcome was inconsistent, template kept, category deleted. Template:User kon(edit talk links history) has now more users, and maybe Template:Catfd(edit talk links history) can help to avoid further conflicts with WP:CDP section 3. -- Omniplex 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and restore. Makes sense to have a category linked to by a template that was kept in a debate. Fetofs ^Hello! 22:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn a category that is fed by a template shouldn't be deleted like that unless the template is also deleted. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and restore. I'm the creator of the mentioned category and template. --minghong

SilentHeroes

See AfD debate here

Update: The AfD-debate above is not of any value since it's NOT regarding the page in question. It's regarding an old version of the page that for instance I didn't submit.

This page was deleted even though the new page was a complete new setup and was NOT the original 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)
• Overturn and restore, the new article is enough to merit at least a relist. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:18, 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)
  • Old page? New page? Sorry, I think I am a bit confused then. Looking through the deletion log, I see one deletion. What is this second page you refer to? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OH, I see the issue now. Sorry, I was thinking that the AfD above referred to this deleted page. Sorry about that, I didn't notice that pesky space. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist it wasn't CSD G4. --Eivind^t@c 09:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist if we must, but in my view no mod is actually notable - and certianly not to the extent of this large an article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I thank you for your support, but regarding your wish not to list any mods at all: mods both extent the original game and in some cases superseeds the original game in size and or popularity. Don't forget that CounterStrike is still a mod to Half Life. Zarkow 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think you'll find that I woudl consider the encyclopaedia improved without either of those ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Relist Some third-party mods are notable (for example GMod for Half-Life 1/2 and Red Orchestra (game mod), although not entirely sure about this one) and it does deserve a second chance. Sasquatch t|c 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Sasquatch. There are, apparently, around 10,000 people playing this mod, and more than 11,000 Google hits indicate a certain threshold of notability. At the very least let's see what the proposed page is so we can judge for ourselves.Captainktainer 09:39, 23 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)
• Overturn and delete based on WP:V and WP:RS issues. FCYTravis 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Guettarda 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure because I think the "no consensus" finding is pretty reasonable, and because I think there should be a much higher standard to overturn a "no consensus" or "keep" decision than to overturn a deletion.Cheapestcostavoider 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Proto and JzG. I should say that I disagree with Cheapestcostavoider; I think deletion review ought only to bear out what the community thinks ought to have been the disposition of a given AfD (in view of the comments already made at the AfD page), irrespective of what decision the community contemplates overturning and irrespective of the discretion of the closing admin (that is, except in such cases as DRV is unclear, the decision of the original closing admin ought to be wholly discounted). Dbiv, inter al., is certainly correct that our presumption is generally toward "keep", and that we ougntn't to discount "keep" "votes" that raise valid arguments but fail to include an otherwise pro forma WP:XYZ reference, but I think that it is eminently clear that the "delete" position is supported, in any event, by stronger reasoning. I do think a "no consensus" closure seems reasonable (and I'd expressed prior to the close of the AfD that I was altogether happy not to have to be the one to sort through the mess), and, so, were the standard of review abuse of discretion, for example, I would endorse closure. It is my belief that DRV ought to constitute a de novo review (not of the actual deletion question, in most cases, but only of the proper adjudgment to have been made apropos of the consensus developed in response to that question), and so I think it is appropriate for us to conclude that "delete" was in order here. Joe 03:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that you believe DRV should involve itself in de novo review, but ample precedent provides that this is not what we are here to do. DRV is not to be used to reargue a deletion debate. Xoloz 17:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the deletion review should absolutely be conducted under an abuse of discretion/clearly erroneous standard for decisions to keep with deletions reviewed de novo. As I've said in the past, this would allow for a decision to be overturned where the administrator did something like overlook a demonstrated copyvio or ignored a unanimous consensus in favor of deletion. Otherwise the presumption in favor of keeping an article means little to nothing and we may as well let people re-nominate articles immediately after closure, which would obviously be a terrible policy. You should only get one bite at the apple for deletion.Cheapestcostavoider 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment With respect to Xoloz's comment, I intended to make clear that I do not believe DRV should recapitulate and open anew the deletion debate; it should open anew how properly the deletion ought to have been closed (perhaps a distinction without a difference, but I think not). We should review the initial AfD in order to determine what consensus, if any, had developed, irrespective of the decision of the closing admin (although Cheapest certainly raises valid arguments in favor of the contrary position; in the end, I think our assumptions of good faith must lead us to believe that DRV would not be abused in the fashion of which Cheapest writes, though certainly this may be pie-in-the-sky thinking on my part). Joe 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Joe's argument here is much better than Xoloz's, for practical reasons. If we don't use DRV to try to find the best answer to an afd, it's not very useful. The "no consensus" is not unreasonable- it's definitely the easiest answer. But, the question here is, can we do better? Can we analyze more carefully and find a better answer? By saying DRV is only about blatant mistakes in closing, we're not doing the best we can for our content. By placing a high burden to changing an Afd closure, we're making the whole system far more random than it ought to be. We're basically saying, whichever admin happens to come along at the right time and close the debate gets far more weight to their opinion than to anyone else's. I fail to see how anyone could argue that this randomness is a good thing compared to closure by consensus of multiple editors. In this case, it may not matter- this DRV looks like a "no consensus". But as a matter of principle, I do not believe for a second that the opinion of the person who happened to close the Afd should get more weight than anyone else's. Friday (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure christ this is turning into a fucking clown parade. - FrancisTyers 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm. The closest thing I see here to clowning are unhelpful comments like yours. Is there any meaning we can glean from your remark? My best guess is that you appear to be saying "This is complicated and time-consuming, let's not bother with it." If that's how you feel, fine, nobody's making you participate in the deletion review. But why make disparaging remarks about people who think there might be a better answer here than just slapping on a "no consensus"? Friday (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  I find Francis Tyers' comments more enlightening than Zoe's somewhat glib "of course" comment accompanying her vote -- as though it's a no-brainer, when, clearly, the votes thus far indicate otherwise. "Clown parade" in my book in the sense that the "African philosophy" "African aesthetic" DRs on this page are because a group of editors decided to make a mockery of the AfD process and Wiki procedures, completely circumventing both to accomplish illegal obliterations of two articles and, in the second case, making the title of one a redirect to a wholly inappropriate subject. The result is a title related to a complex aspect of traditional African cultural values redirects the reader to an article on Western pop culture. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. From the look of things (including the vote so far, which seems to support FT's view), I'd say his assessment is certainly closer to the mark. deeceevoice 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I almost wrote, "At this point who cares?" But I've come to believe this is an important matter on procedural grounds. The precipitous deletion of this article by User: Zoe -- just as in the case of "African aesthetic" -- should not be upheld. It was accomplished without discussion or proper process, in defiance an AfD finding. Admins should not be encouraged to do as Zoe has done -- defy the official result of an AfD, going on to delete the contents of the page -- and then, in this case, making it a redirect to a wholly inappropriate article. Bad business that. Endorse closure. Deeceevoice 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Deeceevoice, I don't understand - you want Cool (African philosophy) and African aesthetic to both be kept, as separate articles? I can't agree with doing anything on purely procedural grounds - procedures exist to serve the goal of writing an encyclopedia, not to supersede it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. The article should not have been deleted, and it certainly should not have been merged with "Cool (aesthetic)." Ideally, IMO, the article text should be merged with "African aesthetic," once the undelete is accomplished. It certainly has no business being merged with an article on Western pop culture. deeceevoice 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So, if it should be merged "once the undelete is accomplished," why not skip the undelete, and just merge the text? Do you just need a copy of it? I don't care at all about what should have happened, only about where we go from here. Let's not stand on ceremony. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• We already know for sure that the deletion of this by Zoe is not going to stand, no matter how the DRV comes out. That's a done deal. Shortly after she deleted it, I asked her to undelete, and she did, remember? Bringing up what you see as past wrongdoings isn't helpful to us moving forward. Friday (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  Zoe may have undeleted the article, but it is still blanked. Further, it continues as a redirect to "Cool (aesthetic)." Nothing whatsoever has been done to correct that egregious act. deeceevoice 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  The redirect is not a matter to discuss here. It's being discussed on the talk page. Friday (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete (1) Out of 29 votes, only 6 voted for "keep". (2)Article is a POV fork & original research (3) There is no need to keep two articles with the same content. Deeceevoice admitted that she already created African aesthetic with the informations from Cool (African philosophy) "The information from "Cool (African philosophy)" is now it in its proper context, in an article on dealing with the underlying cultural ethos of many traditional African societies. ... Further, I intend to use additional information from this article (in addition to the material that was gutted from it) to continue build the framework for "African aesthetic." (Deeceevoice) [21] CoYep 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I could not make heads or tails of this AFD debate. It was refactored, discussed on the article's talk page, the talk page of the AFD. Deeceevoice was arguing for merging then for keeping. If the content is going to be in African aesthetic we should at least keep the history (redirect/history merge). Kotepho 01:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Lots of confusion and acrimonious discussion on this one here, at the AfD, and on the talk page. A fairly large number of people who seem extraordinarily virulent about wanting to delete this. This is exactly what a no consensus keep-by-default AfD conclusion should be. Flag it with a tag if you think it needs one, let things quiet down, edit it as need be, and revisit in some months once everyone is calm again. Whatever good encyclopaedic content there is (and I have not read it in enough detail to have an opinion on that), let's give it a chance and let's see what it leads to. There is no need to rush. Martinp 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC), who voted No-consensus-keep, which I guess is one of the so-called "unconvincing" keep votes that Proto refers to.
• Endorse closure JoshuaZ 02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Proto et al. Tasteless Humor Comment (no extra charge): Does FrancisTyers' comment above mean that clowns having sex while on parade in Africa would be cool? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:27, 28 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)
  • While being a member of Hitler Youth wasn't a choice, nor is being born Canadian (as an example). I'm not meaning to compare the Hitler Youth with Canadians overall, just in this particular instance of non-choice membership. Could you clarify your position in regards to such lists? Darquis 03:44, 23 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)

Sigh...I guess we can no longer have categories for organizations whose membership is mandatory...my mistake. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:06, 27 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)

I had no idea that all categories were supposed to be "uncontroversial". Lets delete all Nazi-, Scientology-, and Politics-related categories immediately, then. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:08, 27 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)
• Endorse deletion per BorgHunter. DRV isn't for re-fighting *FD. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Membership itself isnt very relevant because entry was mandatory. If a controvery arised as a result however, that may be notable enough to include in the bio. Nontheless, no list, no category would be my inclination. Question is, what to do now with Category:Hitler Youth? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 15:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Being as some people have voted to delete on the basis that Category: Hitler Youth exists, my guess is that it will require a separate CFD...but I guess I'm "biased". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Borghunter. Unmanageable cat due to enforced participation; notable members will have articles in which that will be mentioned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia only has articles for notable people. Therefore, there is nothing unmanageable about this category. I know that you have been on Wikipedia long enough to understand that notability is implied in all lists and categories. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Borghunter and KillerChihuahua. --kingboyk 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure keep deleted per Borghunter. --FloNight ^talk 09:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

19 April 2006

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 solely 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. [22] 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,^[23] 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<font color="#555555">||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)
• Endorse and keep deleted because it's unverifiable, and nothing which is verifiable may be included on Wikipedia. I direct the attention of the audience to the little line directly underneath the edit box, to wit, "Content must be verifiable." If it is not, then it must be deleted. If reliable sources are found which verify the assertions, a new article may be created without prejudice. FCYTravis 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  ok so lets break it down line by line then shall we?

  "HAI2U is the name of a popular shock site, hai2u.com, which depicts a female vomiting while performing fellatio on a man sitting in a lawn chair, taken from a photo shoot by pornography director Max Hardcore."

  all verifiable by looking at the site itself...

  "The actress featured on the website uses the stage name Catalina and is featured in several of Hardcore's films. The site has the text "HAI2U!!!1 :)" in bold at the top of the page."

  Verifiable by visiting Max Hardcores website and browsing photo galleries...

  "The page is written in w3c validated XHTML 1.0 Transitional markup for officialness, and contains a link visible only in the Internet Explorer browser to make it your homepage."

  Verifiable by visiting the site, and by running it through w3.org's html validator.

  "The site began in May 2005 and now receives tens of thousands of visitors per month."

  Verifiable by visiting the alexa link provided IN THE ARTICLE

  "The website falsely claims that it has been referenced by Time Magazine and The New York Times;"

  hrm... visiting the site proves that it claims this... a simple check with time magazine and a search at NYTimes brings 0 hits ... oops guess this one is verifiable too

  "the traffic and popularity it has garnered is due entirely by word of mouth, person-to-person communication."

  first unverifiable original research statement...

  "The owner of hai2u.com is unknown, since they have enabled domain privacy through Domains by Proxy."

  verifiable with a simple whois...

  "It is thought that the website was started by a member on #maddox on the irc.whatnet.org IRC server, the official channel of The Best Page In The Universe."

  A simple visit to maddox's site backs up that he hangs out on #maddox and the server... and that its called "The Best Page In The Universe" but this still falls as unverifiable speculation

  HAI2U is also an abbreviation of "hi to you", a term used during instant message conversations.

  verifiable...

  WOW 2 whole sentances that arent verifiable... guess this really must be deleted and purged from the face of wikipedia... hell this is more verifiable than our articles on George W. Bush, John Kerry and Richard Nixon. Seriously Travis I dont know who peed in your cornflakes this morning, but dude your seriously in the wrong here with this "unverifiable" crap.  ALKIVAR™ 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • So your concept of a reliable source is: "Hey she looks pretty similar to the girl in this other picture"? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No my reliable source is THE SAME PICTURE in another series on Max Hardcore.  ALKIVAR™ 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, that wasn't clear, but it would be nice to provide a link. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry I cant give the link (requires registration to even load the page... and i'm not giving out a password tied to my credit card #)  ALKIVAR™ 03:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. No consensus for deletion. --Myles Long 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. I am truly regretting voting for Aaron to be an admin. I thoroughly resent being described as an "AfD troll" too. I adhere with the utmost commitment to WP:V and I consider it an abuse to use it as a poor excuse for deleting articles that you don't like. Grace Note 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. There was no consensus. bbx 00:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Everything that Alkivar wrote fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Full stop. - brenneman^{L} 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Anyone who simply states "no consensus" here hasn't addressed the issue. We don't vote on verification, so you might as well be saying "My breakfast was good." - brenneman^{L} 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with you on NOR. Per WP:RS, websites can be used as a primary source about themselves. NOR allows the use of claims that are easily verifiable without any specialist knowledge from primary sources. It still has terrible V problems though and an article should not be entirely reliant upon unpublished works. I cannot find where in our deletion policies that something may be deleted for such reasons without a rough consensus though. Yes, it can be inferred from WP:V, which is part of the trifecta, but it is not explictly stated. "At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." is what our deletion policy says. DGFA is a more lax, but it isn't policy. Should it? I'm not sure. Process does get things wrong sometimes, but I am more worried about admins supplanting their own opinion. Yes, I know V cannot be overturned by consensus, but you should at least get someone to second your opinion. Kotepho 05:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted but lets not make a habit out of this per my comment above. Kotepho 05:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Though personally I would've voted delete, if i've known about it, the fact that this was deleted in a largely questionable manner calls for an undelete + possibly another AfD just because it needs to be done properly again. // Gargaj 10:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Good, solid decision. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Very, very odd close. --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Administrators are not robots. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The redirect to the list of shock pages is good, no reason for this to have it's own article. At the same time, Brenneman's comments to Alkivar verged on incivlilty. Brenneman needs to chill out. --Gmaxwell 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted under WP:IAR. Ral315 (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete as it was deleted contrary to afd consensus, and commend the original nominator for doing the right thing even if they think Wikipedia could do without this article. VegaDark 02:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Solid close. —Encephalon 03:03, 28 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 [24] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[25] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [26] 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. [27] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [28] 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 [29]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [30] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [31] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [32] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [33] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [34] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [35] 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 [36] 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. [37] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [38] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[39] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[40] 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. [41] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [42] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [43] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [44] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [45] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [46] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [47] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [48] 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. [49] 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. [50] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [51] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [52] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [53], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [54] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [55] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [56] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [57] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [58] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [59] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [60] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [61] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [62] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [63] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [64] 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 [65]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. [66] 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.

Upfront Rewards

• 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 [67].

Would an admin please make it available?

Hello? Would someone email it to me?

Email it to whom? Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously Elvey, three lines up. · rodii · 11:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Others

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)

• Someone deleted User:Freestylefrappe a while ago, and then I created a page with the disclaimer that he/she left. Can someone restore the history? Thanks. KI 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It was user:Freestylefrappe themself who deleted the page, which is perfectly allowable unless there is some need to retain the information that was there - see Wikipedia:Userpage. Having had a quick look through the most recent version prior to announcing their departure I cannot see anything anything that we need to have. Unless there is a reason I'm not aware of (perfectly possible as Freestylefrappe isn't someone I interacted with much) then I don't see why we need the history. Thryduulf 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• No the talkpage history is still there (as it should be), and unless there is good reason otherwise, a user is entitled to have his userpage history deleted. --Doc ^ask? 21:36, 25 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)

Decisions to be reviewed

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)

29 April 2006

Feminists Against Censorship

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminists Against Censorship

Dlyons493 listed this page for deletion on the grounds that they were a "non-notable very diffuse group with tenuous existence.". I voted to keep. While I couldn't find a notability policy dealing with organisations or pressure groups, I drew on the "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" criterion, which appears in one form or another in several guidelines. Accordingly, I listed the following sources from British newspapers and books independent of the organisation to testify for their existence and notability:

• The British Film Institute found them worth linking to.
• In 1998, the definitely notable Peter Tatchell stated in The Independent (a British national newspaper) that they paid a fine for him - quite remarkable for a group which doesn't actually exist. [68]
• The Independent has cited them several times, twice in 1995 [69], [70] (describing them as "a libertarian strand of the feminist movement"), and in their 2005 obituary of Andrea Dworkin, stating that the group was created in opposition to her views. [71]
• In 1999, The Sunday Herald (a Scottish newspaper) cited them regarding pornography statistics. [72]
• Cited in "Sexuality" by Joseph Bristow [73],.
• Mentioned in the Spring 1993 "Feminist Review" [74].
• Mentioned in "Knockin' On Heaven's Door: The Hebrew Bible and Cultural Criticism" by Roland Boer [75]
• Mentioned in "Gender and Social Psychology" by Vivien Burr [76].
• Mentioned in "A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men and Popular Culture", edited by Paul Burston and Colin Richardson [77].

SushiGeek's decision to delete came through this morning.

Reading the debate, and looking at the sources, it seems as if Dlyons493's personal opinion that the group doesn't really exist has been given credence without him being asked to prove it. What happened to WP:NOR? Shouldn't he be required to provide some evidence for his personal opinion before having it taken as fact? Isn't that original research?

He also claimed that the group was purely a mouthpiece for Avedon Carol, when even if this were true it wouldn't mean that the group was undeserving of an article, if it was otherwise notable. He also did not respond to my pointing out the list of publications on their website, which numbered five, of which one was written by Avedon Carol and one co-edited; the page lists five other published authors associated with the group. As far as I know, group size alone does not determine which organisations are deserving of Wikipedia articles.

I can provide more sources if necessary; these are just the ones I listed in the AFD debate. Vashti 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete A few of the sources seem a little tangential, but I agree, there has been a miscarriage of wikijustice in this case. It would have been nice if the sources had been included in the article; will you agree to take responsibility for including them in the article? Furthermore, as for User:Dlyons493, while he made a mistake by apparently not even bothering to do a reasonable googling of the group, please bear in mind that WP:V puts the onus on editors to prove that something exists, not the other way around. Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that the AfD was in error; no shame in fixing that error. (As a side note, this whole thing is why strict deletionism is a flawed philosophy - it tends to throw out a lot of babies with the bathwater, and since histories get deleted with the article, it's hard to fix it without the intervention of some very overworked sysops). Captainktainer 11:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

27 April 2006

The Amazing Racist

The Amazing Racist page was deleted, on the grounds, as far as I understand it, that the Amazing Racist is a non-notable person. The Deletion Talk bit is here : [78]A Google search for "Amazing Racist", quotes included, brings up 58,800 results, Yahoo about 27,800. This page [79] has had 83650 views. I've never seen the original article, but I've created a version of how I think it should look on my user page here : User:TheMadTim. The guy is a lot more notable than some of the entries here on Wikipedia. --TheMadTim 11:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : The article should be included. [WP:WEB] - Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - The person in question fulfills this criteria, having been a contributor to a commercial published work.

OR 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. - Do the Google search. You'll see the videos on everything from MySpace to Shoutwire.

[WP:BIO] also states that it can include "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions". You can buy the DVD on Amazon! DVD on sale at Amazon

2nd edit : Why are people saying I hve not given a reason? I have! It fulfills the criteria for inclusion set out in the two wikipedia policies listed above, namely [WP:WEB] and [WP:BIO]. --TheMadTim 09:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Valid AFD, closed properly, no new evidence presented. I'm not convinced by Google hits, videoblogging trolls have a high cruft multiple. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. David | Talk 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure absent new and compelling evidence of notability. Unanimous AfD covered subject as well as article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• This is my first time editing and/or posting anything so if I screw it up don't get to mad.
  Back to the subect at hand- The Amazing Racist. When I saw this skit/video clip I thought it was definitely fake, but I came to wikipedia to find out the story behind it. Alas it was not here. Why not? Because it offended someone. I don't see why he can't have a reference page so when I tell people it is all a joke I can have a credible source. I have read others say it is not noteworthy enough to have a entry, let's be honest here, it is! People are lying through their teeth just because the don't want the article posted. And on the issue of obscurity there are much more obscure pages on wikipedia, Anyway I will end this with what someone else said about the issue and it is something I firmly believe, "Censoring the Amazing Racist is foolhardy and against the original mission of Wikipedia- to provide uncensored and factual data to all who request it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtmavs (talk • contribs)
  • Please sign your posts on this and other Talk pages by adding ~~~~ to the end of your comment.

• For your info, it was not deleted because "it offended someone" but because it fails to establish any encyclopaedic notability, as a single sketch by a single comedian. If you want to know the kind of sketch considered independently notable, see Dead Parrot. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not here to serve as a credible source, it must be based on credible sources. See WP:NOR. Also see WP:AGF, no-one is "lying through their teeth". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted due process was followed, no reason to overturn given. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Sam Blanning^(talk) --CTSWyneken[User talk:CTSWyneken|(talk)]] 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

26 April 2006

Gurunath

wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurunath

I think the decision to keep was incorrect. Firstly there were 3 votes (including NOM) to delete, and 4 votes to keep. However, the 4th keep vote was put in by a confirmed sockpuppet of another voter, and it was put in 8 days after the nomination, while the AfD was supposed to end after 5 days. So technically it was a stalemate vote. Also, this article attracts little to no interest - nobody voted on this issue except users that were directly involved with the article or friends thereof. Keeping an article on an Indian name like Gurunath is like keeping an article on a Western name like Horace. It doesn't make any sense unless it's directed at someone in particular. John has 2 billion hits on google - google hits don't tell you anything about significance in relation to a name. I think that it's a strange move to keep this article on wikipedia. What is the article going to say? "Gurunath is a given name in India."?? Hamsacharya dan 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep kept Fact is, there are disambiguation pages for both John and Horace, though the latter links first to the Roman poet. Disambiguation pages for common names are a common WP practice; Turnstep's closure was in keeping with this trend, as well as reflecting the reality of an evenly split opinion. However heavily the page needs to be edited, the closure has merit and should not be reversed. Xoloz 02:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure While it would have been a stalemate vote sans the sock, that only would end up with a no consensus (which I think should have been the result regardless). And in the case of no consensus, the article should default to keep, lacking a clearly noted violation of Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Darquis
• Endorse closure/keep kept. Even if the votes were a tie, no consensus = keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Darquis and Xaosflux. --David.Mestel 05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Avillia/CVU_Politics

In a current RfC, I am contesting the first deletion of the page as administrative abuse. A administrator who read the RfC restored the page until a consensus was gained on RfC. It was deleted again by the friend of the subject of the RfC, and I recreated it per recommendations from people including the restoring administrator. Tawker, the administrator who first deleted it, has subsequently deleted it once again and protected it. Until there is a consensus at RfC (Hopefully one not made up by friends of the accused, cough), I'm requesting the page is reinstated. If the RfC continued along it's current path and no one dissents, then delete at will. --Avillia_{(RfC vs CVU) 01:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

• The page was restored by an admin mistakenly; see the relevant discussion on the administrator's incidents noticeboard, where he states "Gah, I've screwed up now. I did it on the advice of another user, reactionarily, before looking at all the facts. Now that I see there was lengthy discussion on it (he did not tell me this) I feel like a total douche. :(". Since the page was deleted as a violation of users' privacy, channel policy, common etiquette, and copyright laws, it would make more sense to keep it deleted until the request for comment can decide either way. Note, also, that the relevant request for comment is decidely against publicly posting private IRC logs thus far. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that so far, the only people who have weighted in are decidedly Pro-CVU or members of CVU theirselves. Note also that the channel policy was just created to stop me from discussion. Note that the copyright law has a nice section for 'fair use', if one could even argue as to the copyright ownership. Also, note that common etiquette seems like a oxymoron when I had a page 'violating the privacy' of users in a page directed at the same, just to be targetted for extensive abuse by the magical cabal. --Avillia (RfC vs CVU) 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm anti-cvu, ant not a member of it. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. As Pathoschild says above, it's a "violation of users' privacy, channel policy, common etiquette, and copyright laws". Note that I have no "association" with the CVU whatsoever aside from knowing of it's existance, nor do I hold virtually any opinion on the group either way.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment could someone describe the page, as it is impossible to comment on this without knowing content. Were they of a public channel? Which? Private messages? Which RFC? I'm going to guess the one linked in her sig. How do they pertain to that RFC? Claiming copyright on irc logs seems spurious at best as it depends on what country, etc. Was this page created and posted before the rule was added on 04:50, 25 April 2006? Kotepho 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The logs were taken from #vandalism-en-wp on Freenode, which requires confirmation to join. The channel policy did not explicitly prohibit public logging for the same reason it doesn't explicitly prohibit stalking, warez, or posting personal information— it was considered so obvious that it need not be stated. To confirm this popular opinion, see comments from uninvolved users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TawkerPathosEssjay, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IRC_logs_deletion_and_wheel_waring, and in this discussion, as well as text on m:IRC channels and Freenode's channel guidelines. It has since been modified to explicitly state this obvious detail. If you wish, I see no problem restoring the page without the logs for this discussion; there is plenty of non-log content. // [admin] Pathoschild(^talk/_map) 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. It is not an 'official' wikipedia channel though right? I can see how someone might not know about the policy or might not think it applies. Since it was a private channel, I will agree that it is against "common etiquette" to repost logs without permission, but the instances I saw were not particularly egregious. Still I am not sure why someone had to delete the page. Would not most people's concerns be dealt with by editing them out and anyone else's by deleting them from history? Deleting the page outright seems rather rash. Kotepho 05:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, keep deleted, delete again if necessary In at least some jurisdictions, it's illegal on privacy grounds to even make chat logs, much less publish them [80]. I posted to WT:CSD suggesting that privacy vios (in general) be included on the list of speedy deletion criteria--it's pretty obvious, but it's not listed explicitly at the moment. Per Pathoschild/s, restoring some version with no logs should be ok. Note: I'm not associated with CVU. Phr 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just restored the page without the private logs, since it is the posting of private logs that is at issue and not the page itself. See User:Avillia/CVU_Politics. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted(edit conflict with Pathos' announcement) per Phr and Pathoschild, and, no, I'm not involved with CVU either. If someone wants it restored without the logs, that seems ok. JoshuaZ 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore: the full chat logs are no longer on the page, so there is obviously nothing wrong with it now. --David.Mestel 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - page is now up, so is it really a matter of "restoring"? Anyhow, undelete conditionally, that the logs stayy off the page. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:36 UTC (2006-04-27)
• Allow to keep undeleted conditionally as long as the logs are gone (preferably the diffs deleted so that way only admins can see them) and he does not repost the quotes on the page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverend and The Makers

The following text was written by the article's creater, and copied from User talk:JzG#Reverend and The Makers --Rob 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting this page. Reverend and the Makers are an up and coming British band, gaining quite some notoriety in the British music press and in online forums. Surely the very fact that the page has been recreated so many times is testement to their popularity?

Regarding Wikipedia's WP:NMG page - it states that; "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" - Reverend and the Makers have achieved the following criteria:

"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources." - they have toured nationally for years, and have recently been touring with Arctic Monkeys.

"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." - a number of interviews with the band can be found online and in music publications.

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - the band are a major proponent of what the NME call the 'New Yorkshire' scene - indeed, Wikipedia even has a New Yorkshire page, on which the Makers are already listed.

"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." - Their track, 'Heavyweight Champion of the World', is used by Sky TV's Soccer AM program when highlights of previous matches are shown.

Do you not think this is justifiable enough? They meet not 1, but 4 of Wikipedia's own criteria for inclusion. Captmonkey

• Overturn and list on AfD - I can't see the article content, so I'm going by what I do see above, and I ask it be undeleted, unless there's some reason I'm unaware of. JzG seemed to base the deletion on WP:NMG (see both user's talk pages). You can't speedy based on WP:NMG. That's not policy. A claim of notability needs to be made. If made, AFD should settle the question. It seems, even if there wasn't a claim of notability, the author could easily add one now. AFD will then settle whether it's sufficient and verifiable. --Rob 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD - According to the deletion log, this page was deleted for being non-notable and failing WP:NMG. Neither of these are CSD. (That said, this might be a case of WP:SNOW but I can't see the article to be sure.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I refer the hon. gentleman to criterion A7. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But that's not what's in the deletion log. It says non-notable, it should say "CSD A7". Non-notable is not always the same. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • A7 was in the original speedy tag, not copied into the summary field for some reason. But A7 says non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't know about this. The title of A7 appears to have changed recently. It used to be just "Unremarkable people or groups". Actually, I think the new title is somewhat misleading. (Since non-notability itself isn't a reason to speedy delete, but no claim of notability is.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Had there been a credible claim of notability I would have AfDd it per my usual practice. I may be a rouge admin but I am quite conservative when it comes to A7 applied to apparent bandcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 14:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and put up on AfD From what I've seen above, I think it would meet at least one criteria listed on WP:NMG. It may not, but without the article there, there's hardly a way of knowing. Darquis 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and put up on AfD based on the info given, if it checks out, this may be notable enough, and agree that this probably is not a CsD based on music related criteria. However if it (or a substantially similar article under a different name) was previously AfD'ed then it qualifies for CsD under recreation of previously deleted content... was that the case? ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, but relist only if those sources don't check out initially. The NME claim appears to check out, so...--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hi, I am the author of the offending page. I've been asked to cite sources for my claims above, so, here I am. I'm confused - it's a simple, non-offensive page about a band who are about to break through in the UK! Anyhow, to the points raised:
  1. "Have gone on tour" - [81] - here, buy tickets for their forthcoming National UK tour. Or, perhaps you've seen them on the current crazy sell out (tickets going for £200 on eBay) Arctic Monkeys tour as the support act? Here's a BBC review of a gig they did in February - [82] - they even say "This band (Reverend and the Makers) are the ones to watch".
  2. "Been written about online and offline" - Seriously, do a Google search - you'll turn up half a dozen interviews from different sites. The NME said this about them in a recent review, 'Trust us, before long you will worship at the altar of the Reverend. Hallelujah'.
  3. "Become a prominent representative of a notable style or local scene" - the existing, unmolested, Wikipedia article for the burgeoning New Yorkshire musical scene already lists them. The NME coined this term, and used the Makers as an example of one of the bands in the 'scene'. Think back to 'scenes' like Britpop and NWONW.
  4. "Has performed music for media that is notable" - I'll admit that this is a little tenous, but their track, "Heavyweight Champion Of The World" is being used by the Sky TV production, Soccer AM, as backing music to replays of the previous weeks football action. [83]

  Anyways, they're a band that are just on the cusp of good things - this is no garage band playing gigs in deserted pubs - they just played to several thousand people just last night in Hull. It's up to you guys! :) Captmonkey 19:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Regarding you statement "Seriously, do a Google search". Actually, when you make the article, you should have done that, and cited every single reliable source you could. Never assume people will look up missing information, outside the article. It's basically up to you to include relevant material. So, if/when the article is undeleted, be sure to include it. While anybody can do a google search, not all results are useful. Some are just promotional and self-written. It's really up to the article author, to pick out the high quality ones, and include them in the article. While I criticized the deletion of this article, I am certain, that if the article had the relevant information, it would never have been deleted. --Rob 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care overmuch, happy to have it listed on AfD. More effort seems to have gone into pleading the case than went into the article, which is always a bit frustrating. But do note again the comment made by the creator that the band are about to break through in the UK. That was how I read it, too. Bands which are "about to break through" very often don't. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete add the cites. Put on AfD if it still looks dodgy. They're not the only ones to leave the cites for later and get deleted in between. Perhaps the author should have read Wikipedia:Why should I care? first - an easy mistake to make. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Having spot-checked the deleted versions, this certainly seems to have qualified under speedy-delete criterion A7 since the article itself made no claim to notability that I found. Send it to AFD as a disputed speedy-deletion but I'm skeptical about its chances. Some real evidence will have to be presented that this is more than the garage band that the article made it seem. Remember that we don't cover bands that are about to break thru - we cover bands that have broken thru. Rossami (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, a number of criteria in WP:MUSIC are written specifically to include bands lacking mainstream commercial success. Notability<>fame+sales, necessarily. --Rob 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ...but there's no rush. I fully agree with you, but I think the "notability without commercial impact" thing needs to be evaluated by the good old fashioned "test of time". --kingboyk 07:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • "there's no rush" is not what a wiki is about (that's more of a Britanica approach). Also, the test we will evaluate the article by is WP:MUSIC, which, if the creator's claims can be substantiated, the article will pass. --Rob 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Disagree, sorry. There are differing opinions of what wiki is about. Being up-to-the-second up-to-date is not necessarily one of them. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Request: If admins wish to wait the full week before removing "protected deleted" status, can I suggest its undeleted immediately, but to a user-subpage of the creator. That way, he can fix it up properly (maybe get some feedback), before its put back in article space, hopefully avoiding the need for re-deletion. There's no point in AFD voters wasting their time evaluating the old version, if its going to be substantially changed shortly. --Rob 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• List at AFD (where I shall recommend Delete) As a popular music buff, I'm usually quite lenient on band articles. However, having the luxury of being able to look at the article, it's main claim to notability is that the band are touring as support to the currently very fashionable Arctic Monkeys. They don't even have a record deal. I think at a bare minimum a new band ought to have a record deal to be notable. (There are of course exceptions, such as when the members are already notable, or historical bands who became notable through later activities of their members or some other reasons.) --kingboyk 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Changed from keep deleted to relist. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is DRV, not AFD. So, the issue is whether the article qualified for a speedy under a7. A claim was made. If you contest it, you should take up the matter on an AFD. You said "it's main claim to notability is...". Hence, you have conceded the speedy was invalid, since you conceded a claim was made. The rest of your sentence will be relevant at the AFD. It is fundamentally wrong for admins to ignore policy, and remove content, without community consensus. --Rob 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, you got me on this one. I was thinking about this in bed last night (sad I know!) and I realised I'd snookered myself somewhat on this point. You're absolutely right. I wouldn't have speedy deleted it. I will therefore amend my recommendation. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• i have drawn it by myself using a common WP picture, pls undelete.--Nerd 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, images cannot be undeleted. I'm unsure whether a copy would be available from one of WP's many mirrors. Xoloz 16:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• If he still has a copy he can reupload it and properly tag it as self created perhaps. (General comment, I'm not familiar with the image nor have I checked the deletion history). --kingboyk 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

23 April 2006

List of films about phantom or sentient animals

• Was deleted after a vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films about phantom or sentient animals. The vote was proposed by User:Jack Cain. After proposing and before deletion was approved he removed the link to its companion articleList of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects. This list fits in with many other lists in the category Lists_of_films like
  • List of books and films about hobos and freighthopping
  • List of animal movies
  • List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects
  • List of films using the Wilhelm scream
  • Submarine film
  • List of films with disabled protagonists
  • List of films with TV shows and other films in them
  • List of movies featuring United States Marines
  • List of films featuring independent body parts
  • etc. I don't see why this list was singled out? Jooler 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Closure endorsed/keep deleted One explanation for why the other lists are still around is that they haven't been AfD'ed yet. I understand your confusion and desire for consistency, Jooler, but generally, arguing "Keep Questionable article X because we have Questionable article Y is not a very powerful point. AfD is by its nature piecemeal, and that means that some articles will always be deleted before others of their kind. Here, we have a valid AfD, and I cannot consider this "plea for consistency" as new evidence, because doing so would open up nearly every deletion to constant revoting. AfD works one article at a time. Xoloz 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted. Agree with Xoloz. Jooler's reasoning, while understandable and very common here, leads to a listcruft race to the bottom.
• Endorse closure I can see why you would think these other lists are evidence to keep the one brought here. However, Wikipedia doesn't include articles/lists because other articles/lists are substandard, but rather tries to raise those below standard articles up to standard (or failing that, remove them). Further, this was a unanimous consensus; not a single person spoke in defense of the article. Darquis 17:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have voted to oppose if I'd have seen the vote. It was very quick. It was deleted within 5 days of nomination. But what if I recreate the page? What's the difference? There is no logic here. Jooler 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Five days, as far as I can tell, might not be totally standard (I see many AfDs run for 7), but it's certainly not quick. Darquis 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Five days is the standard. Debates do run longer, because of backlog, but it is absolutely typical and just for uncontentious AfDs to be closed at their fifth day. Xoloz 18:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It was too quick for me to realise it had happened! BTW Just to clarify - I didn't create or even contribute to this page, I only discovered it the day before it was nominated for deletion. Jooler 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Nothing out of process; AfD ran for five days, no quicker than usual. If the page is recreated then it'll be speedy deleted as CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material.  RasputinAXP  c 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • that makes no sense. If it was deleted because it was badly written, then if it is recreated and written well, why should it be deleted, when it fits in perfectly well with similar lists of film. Jooler 17:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Because it still will have the same inherent problems that caused it's original deletion. I think the main issue here is going to be "why do we need this" or "why is this signifigant" Darquis 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Further - the specified reasons for deletion were - "Pointless, badly formatted and highly subjective article Jack Cain 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)" - Pointless is a POV and if it is pointless why didn't Mr Cain also nominate List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects for the same reason? - badly formatted - can easily be remedied. and highly subjective - Eh? How subjective? Any more subjective than List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects or List of films featuring independent body parts? The nominator and voters did not give due consideration to how this list fitted in with other similar lists. Jooler 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not quite how Wiki works. I see why you would come to the conclusion that those other articles make the one in question acceptable. If anything, any articles which suffer from the same failings this article did will be nominated in their own time as people come across them and decide they're unsuited for WikiDarquis 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • But what exactly were the faillings? Ive just contended the reasons for nomination above. List_of_films_about_possessed_or_sentient_inanimate_objects has existed for three years, had loads of contributions and in all that time no-one seems to have come to the conclusion that it should be deleted. I don't know how long List of films about phantom or sentient animals was around for, but if the only problem that made it any different from the other lists was bad formatting then that could easilyhave been remedied. Jooler 18:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, list of two arbitrary and superficially unrelated subclasses of an arbitrary subject genre. Per policy, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information (also potentially WP:NOR. Per process, valid AfD, validly closed. Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Proceduraly valid. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Just zis Guy's marvelously concise explanation. Postdlf 05:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Xoloz and JzG. FloNight ^talk 09:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal

Submitted by Fresheneesz 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The page in question with forced no-redirect

Out of process deletion (called "merge" by the AfD closer User:JzG). I was told I should take this issue up here, after posting it for unprotection

• The consensus was 1 for delete, 1 for delete or merge, 1 for merge, 3 for no delete, no merge - also there was a vote with 7 additional people that did not want deletion or merge. Most of those additional people are not countable, but I think a couple should be countable (I'm not fully sure about the policy regarding this).
• After deletion failed, the 2 for deletion changed their opinion to merge - this leaves a 3 vs 3 not counting the 7 votes.
• I prematurely closed the issue - wrongly thinking that voting matters on wikipedia...
• JzG then prematurely closed the issue (the issue he himself put up, which is bad form I'm told), getting 1 revert from me, and 1 revert from User:A_Transportation_Enthusiast. He then protected the page.
• JzG called his deletion a "merge" when he actually merged only one sentence: history record of merge

1. Before any of this, JzG endoresed moving UniModal to Personal rapid transit/UniModal - I believe this is against wikipedia policy
2. JzG cites that the UniModal page is "fiction", but even if that classification is accurate - doesn't it deserve its place among other "fictions" like freedom ship, and reactionless drive ?
3. JzG says I solicited votes. This is not true.
4. Omegatron _talk agrees that it should "probably be its own page". However Omegatron has noted that my actions are not considered exemplary. My ignorance of official policy is my bane in this case.

All in all, JzG has shown a lack of patience, a lack of the knowlege an admin should have, and a bias toward SkyTran that confuses me. I haven't gotten an answer from JzG as to why its so pressing that that article be deleted and stay deleted. As a final note: I would be perfectly happy with cooling my heels for a little bit, as long as the page eventually becomes undeleted.

People involved:

User:JzG

me

User:A_Transportation_Enthusiast

User:Avidor

These are talk pages where the issue was discussed:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_and_uncooperation_of_an_admin

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal

Talk:Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22_SkyTran/UniModal_uncooperative_admin

Unprotect - AFD has no bearing on whether something is kept or merged. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 07:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Invalid venue. This is not a discussion of a deletion, this is about keeping vs merging a page, and does not belong on DRV. Use WP:3O or WP:RFC. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it belongs on WP:RFPP, as it was improperly protected. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 13:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who saw this on RFP and directed him here. This isn't about whether something got protected or not, it's about whether the deletion process was properly followed, which IS a matter for DRV. If folks don't care to evaluate the AFD process, then maybe AN/I is a better venue. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • The AFD result was keep, as a merge is a form of keep. JzG revert warring and then protecting as a redirect was improper, as an AFD never says anything about merge vs. keep. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse afd outcome (and endorse admin) - "merge what little is verifiable" seems the best call possible given the messy afd. JzG has explained the reasoning in detail behind the closure on WP:AN, which made sense to me. (Yes, ideally he shouldn't have closed it himself, but hardly "bad form", especially as the result was different to his preference)) However, removing an afd notice from an article under discussion, calling it an "idiotic removal thing"[84] is quite bad form in my view. The number of complaints about the result looks like fourm shopping to me, and also your comment about being happy to cool heels (so long as the result goes your way) does not indicate a willingness to accept consensus to me. MartinRe 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(interjection): I have appologized for removing the AfD notice prematurely many times now - my integrity is not what is in question. "does not indicate a willingness..." - that is twisting my words and is not what I meant. Fresheneesz 07:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some replies to the above:

  Point 1: This is an appropriate forum, as a review of a AfD decision (see the header), although it has already been reviewed at WP:AN and my close supported. I did say that AfDs can be revewed by DRV. They can (or if not we need to change the header).

  The first removal of the AfD tag by Fresheneesz is omitted from the above summary. So is most of what User:Omegatron said, which was broadly in support of my actions. The discussion at WP:AN is not discussed, but read it and you'll see it backed my close.

  Point 2: The AfD consensus was merge, by my reckoning, see the Talk page of the AfD, and that went against my preference to delete. The "votes" for keep were almost all unhistoried or unregistered users, in a section titled "vote here" added out of process by User:Fresheneesz, who also removed the AfD notice and then "closed" the AfD as "unanimous keep" based solely on this section; per usual practice these "votes" (AfD is not a vote) which were evidently solicited externally were discounted. I merged. I checked the contents of the article against the similar contents in the main article and ensured that the externally verifiable parts were covered. The main article already included much of this, including the artist's rendering which illustrated the article.

  Point 3: There is no such thing as UniModal. It is a "concept" by one man, who is trying to get investment for it. The subject is covered well in personal rapid transit. The creator, Douglas Malewicki, is quite open about the fact that there is not even a prototype yet. This was a two thousand word article on something which has no objective reality at all, which was presented in somewhat florid terms, and which in my view amounts to a POV fork of personal rapid transit, from which some of the more inflated claims made in the Uni Modal article have been removed as essentially unverifiable.

  Personal Rapid Transit is itself an essentially untried concept; this is the analagous article to the concept articles freedom ship and reactionless drive. There are some pilot programmes, and one or two systems slated to be built, but even those which are said to be under construction bear little resemblance to the widespread urban transit system described in personal rapid transit. SkyTran is not only a version of this untried technology, but it is a version which makes claims of speed and other paramenters unmatched by a the few test installations. That is not to say it's impossible, but it represents the bleeding edge of an unproven technology. And without investors it will never happen. WP:NOT a storefront.

  Point 4: This has been discussed at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, User talk:Omegatron, Wikipedia:Mediation cabal and my talk page.

  Point 5: I am being accused of "ignorance of policy" by someone who removed an AfD tag, set up a "vote here" section in an AfD, "closed" an AfD with substantial editorialising, and set up this rather idiosyncratic DRV format - as well as starting a mediation cabal case without inviting me along (I only found out about it by accident). But everybody knows that us rouge admins don't care about policy...

  So, Endorse redirect or overturn and delete this sales pitch for a hypothetical version of an unproven technology. Just zis Guy you know? 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as redirect. Given all the self-aggrandizing gaming the system that went on, I think this was probably the right course of action. Would've been better for appearances for someone other than JzG to push the actual buttons, but the end result I think is right. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll have to accept this consensus. I thought I finnally had some support. However, it does seem that everyone reviewing this is looking at my faults rather than whether the article on Skytran deserves some discussion before its merged. Thanks for everyone's input. Fresheneesz 07:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it personally. When (and possibly before) the system is built, it'll get its own article. Stephen B Streater 08:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Katefan0. But even with JzG being the one to close it, I still don't think it ended up wrong. Oh, also, wrong venue. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes and Userbox

Those pages were deleted, as were their talk pages, and protected afterwards. The issue I have is that the redirects run in loops (in one case, at least, the talk page redirects to the main article) and the redirects really ought to be running to WP:Userbox and WP:Userboxes, since this is a Wikipedia specific term. Alternatively, we ought to be saying on Userbox that this is a Wikipedia specific term and then redirecting to WP:Userbox. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) This is not an undeletion request. This is a redirection request.

• This has been the subject of a recent DRV debate. I brought the odd result to closer Brenneman's attention, and he has said he would attend to it. For the record, I support the redirect to projectspace as reasonable. Xoloz 19:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all! WP:ASR wikipedia specific terms should not be in the main space at all, even as redirects (unless with the WP:xxx notation). We've had this discussion before I think, let's not do it again. Why can userboxes just go away and die somewhere? --Doc ^ask? 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I indicated above you, Doc, we have in fact had this discussion before. Since redirects are cheap and for convenience's sake, one wonders why anyone would spend anytime arguing against any even remotely useful ones. Xoloz 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Because, I don't think we should allow redirects from article to project space unless prefixed with 'WP'. I know there are others, but I would vote to delete them too. (And, in any case, userboxes are not 'remotely useful'. --Doc ^ask? 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, there are hundreds of others, many of which receive a huge amount of use every single day. Where would we be without NPOV? Your revolutionary proposal for mass-deleting well-established, useful, and harmless redirects should be formally proposed with a new policy if you want it to ever happen, not just assumed on a whim without any consensus support. And if it's userboxes that you don't think are useful, you should be voting to delete Wikipedia:Userboxes, not the redirects to that page. Once the userboxes page is deleted, deleting the redirects will be a natural side-effect. Why be sneaky about it? -Silence 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• On the one hand this was a work-to-order where I did nothing beyond the minimum required. On the other hand, the current state makes no sense but I'd felt it was a harmless enough glitch that it could wait until I archived my talk page and cleaned up everything else I'd forgotten to do. On the third hand I was hoping that by that time no-one would care about userboxes and that everyone would be arguing about if the onion tied to one's belt should be purple or brown. - brenneman^{L} 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's easier for users that was. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Purple, 'cause it's prettier!!! Xoloz 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per WP:ASR --pgk^(talk) 06:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, WP:ASR is not a speedy deletion criterion. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on RFD. Process is important. "Cross-namespace redirect" and WP:ASR are not speedy deletion criteria. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. They already went through RfD, as I recall, and were deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Let's try to keep this project focused and article namespace reasonably clear. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Shouldn't be in article space. David | Talk 13:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted, as further debate would be inconclusive, and it was previously deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted- cross-namespace redirects are NOT to be kept. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per it's easier to get to the userboxes if they are. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• There indeed was a Review on this recently; like Xoloz I am a bit surprised it was closed the way it was. Some remarks:
  1. Cross-namespace redirects on WP are not only allowed, some are encouraged. Every WP: and WT: -style redirect sits in the Main space and points to a page in the Wikipedia space. These are usually non-controversial. The governing guideline is Wikipedia:Shortcut.
  2. There are also a smaller number of Main→WP redirects which are not of the WP: -style. Examples are NPOV, Wikipedia is not paper, Disambiguation, No personal attacks, Assume good faith, ArbCom, and CotW. There seems to be some disagreement about them; Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Precedents#Should redirects to other spaces be kept? suggests that their suitability be determined on a case-by-case basis.
  3. Bearing in mind the general trend to keep redirects to high-traffic WP space pages, especially those known by a particular catch phrase or term, it may not be unreasonable to keep, say, one page as a redirect; perhaps Userboxes→Wikipedia:Userboxes. I do not think having all sorts of variations is either needed or desirable.
  4. Related matters: a) original RfDs here b) an aside: the comment above that cross-space redirects are never speedy candidates is untrue—Main→User space redirects are speedy candidates (R2).

Whatever the outcome of this review, I do hope that no one relists this yet once more: it's been discussed way more than any such triviality has any right to be discussed. Please respect whatever consensus forms here. —Encephalon 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete as redirect. (And list at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if anyone seriously thinks this should be deleted, since speedy-deletion is obviously inappropriate policy abuse regardless.) This is a very useful and practical redirect to have, much like CotW and the countless other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia editor projects and activities, and there's next to no possibility of it being searched for by someone looking for something other than the Wikipedia project, since "userbox" is not a common word, phrase, or abbreviation (unlike the vast majority of other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia, like disambiguation, a real word, NPOV, a valid abbreviation, and assume good faith, a not-uncommon phrase). Moreover, it's truly hilarious to invoke WP:ASR as evidence for cross-namespace redirects being unacceptable, considering that "WP:ASR" is itself a cross-namespace redirect!! ("WP:" is technically part of the article namespace, not the Wikipedia namespace, but is tolerated as a matter of convenience.) Furthermore, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references itself makes no mention of redirects of this sort being a bad thing, and, for the final nail in the coffin, here is a list of cross-namespace redirects which point to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: Mention of Wikipedia in articles, Avoid self-references, WP:NSR, Avoid self-reference, WP:SELF, Avoid self references, Avoid self reference, WP:ASR. :) And if that wasn't enough, here's a list of cross-namespace redirects to this very page, Wikipedia:Deletion review: WP:VFU, WP:VfU, Votes for undeletion, VfU, WP:RFU, WP:DRV, Deletion Review, WP:Deletion Review, VFU. This deletion is a farce, completely unjustifiable by any policy, guideline, convention, or purpose beneficial to Wikipedia, and should be reversed for the same reasons a deletion of ArbCom or WP:V would be. -Silence 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Hardly notable enough to be even mentioned anywhere in the main space. --InShaneee 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Er, are you aware that these were redirects, not articles? Countless quasi-noteworthy Wikipedia projects have cross-namespace redirects; their point is not to assert notability, but to provide a useful shortcut for users who aren't willing or able to type out lengthy titles like "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" (NPOV) and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones" (WP:TROP). -Silence 01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Global_Resource_Bank_Initiative

Come on whats wrong with this article? I have started work on Wikipedia recently and am a big fan as a user. Would like to get more involved (and will be, belive me) tried to put down this article after a original article about GRB which had been on Wiki for many years (not written by me) was deleted some time ago. Yes that article was to be improved I agree but not deleted? And this one is totally correct and usefull for Wiki users I belive...It looks like the delete maffia is destroing the core idea that articles should have a chance to develop if they are not totally illegal, nonsens or spam.

11:17, 22 April 2006 Redvers deleted "Global Resource Bank Initiative" (CSD-G4 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank)

• Undelete. Put it back on, its good info...--Swedenborg 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I was the one who tagged it as a CSD-G4 with the added bonus of "admin, please check previous version for clear G4" which I'd have to assume meant it matched.  RasputinAXP  c 13:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to AfD. There has been additions to the article since it was last AfDed that make it worthy of a second hearing, the version as it was prior to the AfD is here. It was previously deleted as original research/vanity, and I haven't checked any of the additional information to see if it has the same problems, but I don't think it will harm to spend another week at AfD. Thryduulf 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That version looks to be identical to the one reposted.  RasputinAXP  c 21:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Changes made to this article (which is being constantly reposted under various titles by User:Swedenborg) haven't altered the fundamental reasons it was originally deleted for: original research and vanity. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf. If he can make out a sufficient, anyone at AfD might; that provides basis for a re-evaluation in itself. Xoloz 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf and Xoloz. JoshuaZ 16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. What additions? There's a lot of vague assertions that "people have been talking about something like this", but no evidence whatsoever that anyone has paid any attention to these people. Valid G4, why should AfD have to waste time on it again? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A little bit of paraphrasing and other forms of hand waving do not address the core problem identified by the AfD of the article being original research. Come back when some reliable sources can be provided for the material. --Allen3 ^talk 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid G4 and valid (though low-participation) original AfD which correctly identified the Original Research problem with this article. David | Talk 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Waldo's wallpaper

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldo's wallpaper

should not have been deleted. I got screwed out of my vote. Delete digital blasphemy. 0waldo 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• This article was reposted after having been deleted, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Keep Deleted. Nationalparks 02:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• I looked at the AfD, saw you nowhere. Is there a previous AfD you're talking about? Anyway, AfD isn't a vote, but an attempt to get a consensus. And the overwhelming consensus, with no evidence provided to the contrary, was to delete because it was non notable. Keep Deleted Darquis 03:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Overwhelming consensus to delete and a proper AFD. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. sour grapes ≠ "digital blasphemy". KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. There was a clear consensus to delete, the debate ran for the usual length of time and the notice was placed properly. Following the debate the discussion was closed correctly and the decision implemented apropriately. The page was then recreated as a 1-line sub-stub that would have been eligable for Speedy deletion under criteria, A1 (no context) and A3 (no significant content), as well as G4 (recreation of previously deleted content), which was the criterion under which it was speedily deleted. There was nothing improper in any of this. Thryduulf 14:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted A nearly-unanimous AfD should not be overturned on the basis of such an impolite, evidence-barren request. Xoloz 16:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD result was valid per process and per policy. Owaldo needs to remain WP:CIVIL. Also, with a username like that, Owaldo's neutrality is questionable. Just zis Guy you know? 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without a question. // Gargaj 10:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Homestarmy 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No evidence presented that it meets WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nothing to overturn previous decision. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

22 April 2006

Template:Kosovo-geo-stub

Please note SfD debate from December 2005

Please also note: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals#A_problem_which_refuses_to_go_away from 22 April, 2006.

No argumet We dont have a argumet that Kosovo is part of S/M. We have tha Constitution of this countrie but we have the rez. 1244 wich is more importen for the Wikipedia and is saying that Kosovo it is a part of Yougoslavia and is prototoriat of UN. Till we dont have a clearly argument from UN, aricel about Kosovo must be out of this stub, category or template. Pleas dont make the discution with intepretation or the Law wich are not accordin to 1244. Everybodoy can do that but that is nothing for Wikipedia

For more information see rez 1244, and UN document wich is declaretin Kosovo as Provinc in Balkan.

We need this teplare for the Kosovo geography.

• I can't really understand this, but I believe its poster intended it as a nomination, so I have moved it to page-top. Xoloz 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Having made sense of this, it seems nominator is arguing for a stub for geographic locations in Kosovo. Stub-types are provided for convenience, and are not intended to become embroiled in political debates. The existence of a stub type does not imply (or deny) recognition of the independence of a disputed entity. This template seems appropriate. Xoloz 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Xoloz, seems like a useful stub type. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Pages on Kosovo have a rather... shall we say, enthusiastic following, so this stub will probably be good to use. Note that it seems related (judging from the discussion) to other Ksovo stubs which recently have been deleted. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep firmly deleted. Please read the reasons for deletion in the first place. This template was created, deleted through due process at SFD, then re-created and speedily deleted. Because of the - shall we say heated - situation regarding this region, this is an edit-war magnet. Many of the articles that this template was placed on when it was first created instantly erupted into edit wars. The same occurred when it was re-created. Lengthy discussions have taken place over it at WP:WSS/P, which favoured a compromise situation until such time as there is a final UN resolution on the long-term status of Kosovo. You have two options regarding this template: 1) reinstate it and be prepared to protect every article that it is used on, as well as the template itself and its category; 2) keep it deleted and continue to use the compromise situation which every editor of Kosovo-related articles except for Hipi Zhdripi seems prepared to comply with. Those compromise measures call for stubs relating to the geography of Kosovo to be marked with {{SerbiaMontenegro-geo-stub}} (which, Hipi Zhdripi should note, is in line with Kosovo's status according to Article 5 of Annex 2 of UNSC Resolution 1244), but not be marked with the clearly POV and goading Serbia-stub. As such, stubs contained in the Category:Serbia and Montenegro geography stubs fall into three groups - those subcategorised as being in Serbia, those subcategorised as being in montenegro, and those not subcategorised, which, by default, are in Kosovo. if and when there is a final decision on Kosovo's status, this compromise situation will be revised. For now, though, it is the only situation which seems to keep the majority of editors happy. Be warned that if Kosovo-geo-stub is re-created, it will almost certainly appear back at WP:SFD within hours (though probably not at my hands), and will almost certainly be deleted again. You might also like to note that the deletion of this template was investigated at User:Hipi Zhdripi's request by User:RobertG, who refused to reinstate the template. A look at User talk:Hipi Zhdripi may also be informative, given its long evidence of HZ's fractious association with other editors on many articles dealing with Kosovo. Grutness...wha? 08:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete if we have 50 or more stub articles to put it on (which we don't!). We should not be intimidated by edit warriors: if they create havoc they should be blocked. --Mais oui! 08:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't have anywhere near the threshold number of articles used by WP:WSS as a standard for the creation of geo-stub templates (which is 65, not 50). Grutness...wha? 08:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Is 38 not quite close to 50? I suppose it is subjective. But if Kosovo-fans want to create at least 12 more valid geo stub articles, then I will happily endorse the undeletion of the stub template. --Mais oui! 09:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • why 50? The threshold for the creation of geo-stubs is 65. And there are only 37, not 38. 37/65 isn't even 60% of threshold.(Actually, there are 35 - two of them had merger notices on them and the resulting article was considerably larger than a stub). Grutness...wha? 09:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep firmly deleted per Grutness. This is a very problematic template, and re-creation of it will lead to edit wars over its use, its name, and any flag / insignia it may come to use. 1) For one thing, WP:WSS does not approve new -geo-stub templates if they'll be used on less than 65 articles. This one falls into that category. 2) Stub templates, or the use of them, should not become the object of edit wars. This one is sure to become just that. We don't have templates for South Ossetia, the TRNC, Nagorno-Karabakh or similar examples. A template for Transnistria is being debated for deletion for this exact reason. 3) Most importantly: Keeping or deleting this template is currently being discussed on WP:WSS, like we do all other stub templates, and this nomination is a disruption of an ongoing procedure. See the WP:WSS/P page for that discussion which is actually quite thorough. WP:WSS is treating Kosovo like all similar cases. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Grutness. David | Talk 11:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Grutness and Valentinian. Breaking the stub policy to feed the flames of a raging edit war seems like a bad policy decision on many levels. --CComMack 19:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted per Grutness Valentinian and CComMack. templates had to be changed on some articles every day while this was being used becuase of edit warring. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ral315 (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Grutness, persuasive arguments. Just zis Guy you know? 10:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The stub was deleted through process and does not meet any of the thresholds set. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 08:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Grutness. Her Pegship 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the reasons Grutness presents are clearly compelling, and counteract any claims of usefulness the stub template might have. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Simon Strelchik

• First
• Second
• Third

There has never been an AFD that showed consensus to delete this article and I'm not seeing a CSD that this falls under. I suggest that it should be merged into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Kotepho 04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me like it's a bad idea to delete something because it's a vandal target, but at the same time I understand that the presence of a bunch of POV pushers can make a proper AFD very difficult. Restore and merge seems like a very reasonable solution based on the AFDs, so I'll go with it.-Polotet 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• The second AfD was so thoroughly sock infested that any meaningful outcome was impossible. I wouldn't object to a temporary undeletion to allow a merge with Simon Strelchik becoming a redirect (I fear it will need to be protected). Thryduulf 11:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should clarify that I support Curps' actions fully, imho they are a good example of a good application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion endorsed The VaunghWatch people are a known group of vigorous POV-promoters. Any debate clean of sockpuppets has supported the deletion of similar material (there have been at least two relatively clean discussions of such content at DRV.) While not ideally-in-process, Curps action was in response to DRV precedent and reached the right result on the merits in a case where process was being deliberately undermined by a specific faction. I will support Curps' administrative discretion in this case. Xoloz 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and Merge as suggested. Numerous precedents. David | Talk 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary restore and merge per Thryduulf. I think the consensus among non-sockpuppets in the 2nd AfD (the last one with any real debate) was for merging, but given the propensity for abuse by the huge sockfarm I think leaving the history around once the merge is done will just invite endless reverts. I volunteer to perform the merge; I have no particular view pro or con Simon Strelchik and I've become familiar with the topic by now, so if it's restored, someone please let me know and I'll start merging it. Mangojuice 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, last AfD was a sockfest and my attempt to have a proper AfD was disrupted (along with the entire AfD process, thanks to the use of a miusconfigured open proxy) by a sock of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curps did the Right Thing. Just zis Guy you know? 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain this reasoning? If someone AFDs George Bush and Squidward wants to have fun with the debate we will just speedy George Bush? Kotepho 20:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, because unlike the subject of this article George Bush has succeeded in being elected to a significant office, and the article is edited by many people with no history of sockpuppet usage. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary Restore/Merge Merge with New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election , but delete the history, or the sock puppetry will get revert happy again.Darquis 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The second AFD was a sockpuppet fest -- of PROVEN sockpuppets. Kill it dead. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Calton. Ardenn 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete First AfD seems clear and relatively sockfree; and that was in March. I don't think many things are WP:POINT, but the other two nominations seem to be. Maybe it should be merged, but that decision I'll take when I can see it. Septentrionalis 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Failed candidates generally do not get their own articles, and the one claim of independent notability was not verified. Note that VaughanWatch is up to 52 sockpuppets so far, and has deteriorated into mostly making personal attacks on user talk pages. I can see no reason why Simon Strelchik should not be listed in New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and have no opinion on the best way to achieve that outcome. Thatcher131 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Besides the substantive issue of notability, which I believe attaches to major party candidates for Federal office in Canada, I am very suspicious of rapid multiple AfD nominations (WP:POINT is relevant here) followed by a speedy deletion despite very obvious lack of consensus. The votes and comments in the first and third AfDs typically showed reasoning and did not look like typical rapid, vote with no comment type puppetfests. Allegations that the discussions were invalid due to sockpuppet invasion need to be proven (e.g., CheckUser and similar tools). I don't believe there has even been a consensus to delete this or other major party candidate articles. MCB 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Checkuser was used; VaughanWatch has 52 known sockpuppets and many of them were involved in this AFD. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• As I said in the original debates, the current consensus on unelected candidates is to merge them into a single party list, because that's the best way anybody's found so far to balance the competing interpretations of notability. If VaughanWatch's known socks are discounted in this case, the consensus was clearly in favour of doing that, but it's also clear that the VaughanWatch sockpuppets aren't going to let this have an honest, undisrupted AFD (cf. Elliott Frankl, where even after a merge consensus was established they simply ignored it.) And while the merge solution isn't ideal, until we can figure out a better consensus position we're kind of stuck with it. My primary vote every time has been merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; I still stand by that. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note I recounted the first AfD, discarding the IP from Bell Canada and 2 of the 3 VaughanWatch socks. That leaves us with 5 keep, 2 merge and 3 delete. However, 2 of the keeps were predicated on being able to verify that he was a founding member of Save the children; IIRC, this was never established per WP:RS, so those votes change to merge; plus one of the keep votes changed to delete in the second AfD. That gives 2 keep, 4 merge and 4 delete. Thatcher131 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Joe says in the second AfD that his being a founder of Free the Children (NOT Save the Children) is cited by the Canadian Jewish News and by the CBC. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The two references are somewhat unreliable:

1) The Canadian Jewish News article is essentially interviews of three candidates -- want to bet that their information comes courtesy of the candidates themselves?

2) The CBC ref is a candidates' information page, and I'd bet folding money all the information in it was supplied by the candidates. Certainly the photos of Strelchik and Kadis used in both articles are identical (Maybe Reale sprung for the quantity discount at the photographer's). --Calton | Talk 07:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The AfD quotes WP:V: ""Verifiability" does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSinclair (talk • contribs) 08:12 26 April 2006 - User's 8th edit, ignoring the points made in favor of immediate Wikilawyering instead. Seems oddly familiar. --Calton (UTC)

Also I looked at the Checkuser page, and some of the people labelled sockpuppets weren't actually found by checkuser to be such. This includes CasanovaAlive and Munckin. I count 9 Keeps therefore, check the page yourself [here]. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Which of these did you include?

• This user is a confirmed sock puppet of VaughanWatch, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely.

• Blink484 (talk · contribs)
• Aufbauten (talk · contribs)
• Leotardo (talk · contribs)
• Macredi (talk · contribs)
• Slendidlydelicious (talk · contribs)
• UndergroundRailroad (talk · contribs)
• Moonslight (talk · contribs)
• GoldRhymer (talk · contribs)

• And of the ones you claim not to be sockpuppets:

• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs) - Indefinitely blocked: Nineteen edits total, all related to the VaughnMess
• Munckin (talk · contribs) -Indefinitely blocked: Caught using a misconfigured open proxy while trying to expunge the third Strelchik AFD from the AFD page [85]. One of the reports on him included this warning

• If you look at the accounts Mackensen blocked through his log, you will see that VaughanWatch's socks tend to have 50-100 edits (mostly minor copyedits) all on the same day, then they go dormant until they start posting on Simon Strelchik AfDs or other Vaughan issues. Munchkin looks very much the same. Thatcher131 11:16, 21 April 2006 Hmm, that behavior pattern looks familiar.

Can't imagine why anyone would think they were among the 50+ sockpuppets of VaughnWatch. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Many primarily voted Keep:

• Samaritan (talk · contribs)
• Brisvegas (talk · contribs)
• Bearcat (talk · contribs)
• Hyperbole (talk · contribs)
• Luigizanasi (talk · contribs)
• MCB (talk · contribs)
• NDP Johnny (talk · contribs)
• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs)
• Munckin (talk · contribs)
• VaughanWatch (talk · contribs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GSinclair (talk • contribs) 08:12 26 April 2006 - User's 8th edit. I'll bet you're surprised. (UTC) - User now blocked as a VaughanWatch sock.

• Hmmm, 2 sockpuppets and their sockpuppeteer -- already pointed out -- are on that list, provided by a brand-new user with eight edits. Say, isn't one of the definitions of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? --Calton | Talk 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Further note: NDP Johnny (talk · contribs) was at the time a new user, who was solicited to vote on the 2nd AfD by yet another VaughnWatch sockpuppet (VWSP) CanadianElection (talk · contribs) [86]. I noticed this because GSinclair 5th and 7th edits were a solicitation to vote here, made directly under the note by the VWSP.
• Son, the general rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Just some advice. --Calton | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the block above you have, I think, conclusive proof of why Curps was right. There is simply no chance of discussing this objectively due to VaughanWatch's determination to keep this article (maybe VaughanWatch is Strelchik, who knows?) and above all his contempt for Wikipedia. This is beyond farce and well into "screw you". Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• VaughanWatch is the name of a website which publishes partisan views on local politics in Vaughan; Strelchik appears to be one of VW's endorsed candidates, but he's not directly involved in the site AFAIK. Most of us following this matter have been operating from the assumption that VaughanWatch and his socks were Paul DeBuono, the president of the organization, and not Strelchik himself. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're also misrepresenting my vote; I pretty consistently communicated each time that my preference was to merge into a party candidates list, per the existing precedent on unelected Canadian political candidates. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete It was obviously inappropriate for user:JzG to rule Speedy Keep on an article that he nominated for deletion, without any discussion on the AfD outside of his own contributions. The AfD was up for a only a little over an hour, and had already survived 2 AfDs. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit was less than an hour ago, at 02:48. Thirty edits, with the first 29 a series of minor, rapid-fire, and occasionally self-reverting edits. I find this a wee bit suspicious. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no stake in this. Just count the Keep votes, that's what I did. Doublesuede 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Uh huh. Less than an hour here, and you zeroed straight in on this issue, did all the research, and found exactly the right place to post your utterly unbiased results. Right. Of course. Oh, and to correct your statement, one of the AfD's this article "survived" is the one whose integrity we are discussing right now. Rhetoric teachers, we now have GFPL-licensed example of "Begging the question" for you, available right here. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Immediately semi-protect the AFD and the article. I can't make any sense of above arguements. Vandalism and sockpuppets are never a reason for deletion. --Rob 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion As if three afds weren't enough. At least some of the sockpuppets have been shut down. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game)

This section has become too long. The DRV discussion on this article has been moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) (second DRV). Please post all comments there. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

21 April 2006

Category:User kon

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_27#Template:User_kon

and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_26#Category:User_kon

Although the Tfd pointed to the Cfd and vice versa the outcome was inconsistent, template kept, category deleted. Template:User kon(edit talk links history) has now more users, and maybe Template:Catfd(edit talk links history) can help to avoid further conflicts with WP:CDP section 3. -- Omniplex 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and restore. Makes sense to have a category linked to by a template that was kept in a debate. Fetofs ^Hello! 22:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn a category that is fed by a template shouldn't be deleted like that unless the template is also deleted. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and restore. I'm the creator of the mentioned category and template. --minghong

SilentHeroes

See AfD debate here

Update: The AfD-debate above is not of any value since it's NOT regarding the page in question. It's regarding an old version of the page that for instance I didn't submit.

This page was deleted even though the new page was a complete new setup and was NOT the original 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)
• Overturn and restore, the new article is enough to merit at least a relist. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:18, 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)
  • Old page? New page? Sorry, I think I am a bit confused then. Looking through the deletion log, I see one deletion. What is this second page you refer to? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OH, I see the issue now. Sorry, I was thinking that the AfD above referred to this deleted page. Sorry about that, I didn't notice that pesky space. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist it wasn't CSD G4. --Eivind^t@c 09:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist if we must, but in my view no mod is actually notable - and certianly not to the extent of this large an article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I thank you for your support, but regarding your wish not to list any mods at all: mods both extent the original game and in some cases superseeds the original game in size and or popularity. Don't forget that CounterStrike is still a mod to Half Life. Zarkow 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think you'll find that I woudl consider the encyclopaedia improved without either of those ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Relist Some third-party mods are notable (for example GMod for Half-Life 1/2 and Red Orchestra (game mod), although not entirely sure about this one) and it does deserve a second chance. Sasquatch t|c 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Sasquatch. There are, apparently, around 10,000 people playing this mod, and more than 11,000 Google hits indicate a certain threshold of notability. At the very least let's see what the proposed page is so we can judge for ourselves.Captainktainer 09:39, 23 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)
• Overturn and delete based on WP:V and WP:RS issues. FCYTravis 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Guettarda 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure because I think the "no consensus" finding is pretty reasonable, and because I think there should be a much higher standard to overturn a "no consensus" or "keep" decision than to overturn a deletion.Cheapestcostavoider 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Proto and JzG. I should say that I disagree with Cheapestcostavoider; I think deletion review ought only to bear out what the community thinks ought to have been the disposition of a given AfD (in view of the comments already made at the AfD page), irrespective of what decision the community contemplates overturning and irrespective of the discretion of the closing admin (that is, except in such cases as DRV is unclear, the decision of the original closing admin ought to be wholly discounted). Dbiv, inter al., is certainly correct that our presumption is generally toward "keep", and that we ougntn't to discount "keep" "votes" that raise valid arguments but fail to include an otherwise pro forma WP:XYZ reference, but I think that it is eminently clear that the "delete" position is supported, in any event, by stronger reasoning. I do think a "no consensus" closure seems reasonable (and I'd expressed prior to the close of the AfD that I was altogether happy not to have to be the one to sort through the mess), and, so, were the standard of review abuse of discretion, for example, I would endorse closure. It is my belief that DRV ought to constitute a de novo review (not of the actual deletion question, in most cases, but only of the proper adjudgment to have been made apropos of the consensus developed in response to that question), and so I think it is appropriate for us to conclude that "delete" was in order here. Joe 03:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that you believe DRV should involve itself in de novo review, but ample precedent provides that this is not what we are here to do. DRV is not to be used to reargue a deletion debate. Xoloz 17:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the deletion review should absolutely be conducted under an abuse of discretion/clearly erroneous standard for decisions to keep with deletions reviewed de novo. As I've said in the past, this would allow for a decision to be overturned where the administrator did something like overlook a demonstrated copyvio or ignored a unanimous consensus in favor of deletion. Otherwise the presumption in favor of keeping an article means little to nothing and we may as well let people re-nominate articles immediately after closure, which would obviously be a terrible policy. You should only get one bite at the apple for deletion.Cheapestcostavoider 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment With respect to Xoloz's comment, I intended to make clear that I do not believe DRV should recapitulate and open anew the deletion debate; it should open anew how properly the deletion ought to have been closed (perhaps a distinction without a difference, but I think not). We should review the initial AfD in order to determine what consensus, if any, had developed, irrespective of the decision of the closing admin (although Cheapest certainly raises valid arguments in favor of the contrary position; in the end, I think our assumptions of good faith must lead us to believe that DRV would not be abused in the fashion of which Cheapest writes, though certainly this may be pie-in-the-sky thinking on my part). Joe 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Joe's argument here is much better than Xoloz's, for practical reasons. If we don't use DRV to try to find the best answer to an afd, it's not very useful. The "no consensus" is not unreasonable- it's definitely the easiest answer. But, the question here is, can we do better? Can we analyze more carefully and find a better answer? By saying DRV is only about blatant mistakes in closing, we're not doing the best we can for our content. By placing a high burden to changing an Afd closure, we're making the whole system far more random than it ought to be. We're basically saying, whichever admin happens to come along at the right time and close the debate gets far more weight to their opinion than to anyone else's. I fail to see how anyone could argue that this randomness is a good thing compared to closure by consensus of multiple editors. In this case, it may not matter- this DRV looks like a "no consensus". But as a matter of principle, I do not believe for a second that the opinion of the person who happened to close the Afd should get more weight than anyone else's. Friday (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure christ this is turning into a fucking clown parade. - FrancisTyers 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm. The closest thing I see here to clowning are unhelpful comments like yours. Is there any meaning we can glean from your remark? My best guess is that you appear to be saying "This is complicated and time-consuming, let's not bother with it." If that's how you feel, fine, nobody's making you participate in the deletion review. But why make disparaging remarks about people who think there might be a better answer here than just slapping on a "no consensus"? Friday (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  I find Francis Tyers' comments more enlightening than Zoe's somewhat glib "of course" comment accompanying her vote -- as though it's a no-brainer, when, clearly, the votes thus far indicate otherwise. "Clown parade" in my book in the sense that the "African philosophy" "African aesthetic" DRs on this page are because a group of editors decided to make a mockery of the AfD process and Wiki procedures, completely circumventing both to accomplish illegal obliterations of two articles and, in the second case, making the title of one a redirect to a wholly inappropriate subject. The result is a title related to a complex aspect of traditional African cultural values redirects the reader to an article on Western pop culture. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. From the look of things (including the vote so far, which seems to support FT's view), I'd say his assessment is certainly closer to the mark. deeceevoice 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I almost wrote, "At this point who cares?" But I've come to believe this is an important matter on procedural grounds. The precipitous deletion of this article by User: Zoe -- just as in the case of "African aesthetic" -- should not be upheld. It was accomplished without discussion or proper process, in defiance an AfD finding. Admins should not be encouraged to do as Zoe has done -- defy the official result of an AfD, going on to delete the contents of the page -- and then, in this case, making it a redirect to a wholly inappropriate article. Bad business that. Endorse closure. Deeceevoice 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Deeceevoice, I don't understand - you want Cool (African philosophy) and African aesthetic to both be kept, as separate articles? I can't agree with doing anything on purely procedural grounds - procedures exist to serve the goal of writing an encyclopedia, not to supersede it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. The article should not have been deleted, and it certainly should not have been merged with "Cool (aesthetic)." Ideally, IMO, the article text should be merged with "African aesthetic," once the undelete is accomplished. It certainly has no business being merged with an article on Western pop culture. deeceevoice 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So, if it should be merged "once the undelete is accomplished," why not skip the undelete, and just merge the text? Do you just need a copy of it? I don't care at all about what should have happened, only about where we go from here. Let's not stand on ceremony. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• We already know for sure that the deletion of this by Zoe is not going to stand, no matter how the DRV comes out. That's a done deal. Shortly after she deleted it, I asked her to undelete, and she did, remember? Bringing up what you see as past wrongdoings isn't helpful to us moving forward. Friday (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  Zoe may have undeleted the article, but it is still blanked. Further, it continues as a redirect to "Cool (aesthetic)." Nothing whatsoever has been done to correct that egregious act. deeceevoice 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  The redirect is not a matter to discuss here. It's being discussed on the talk page. Friday (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete (1) Out of 29 votes, only 6 voted for "keep". (2)Article is a POV fork & original research (3) There is no need to keep two articles with the same content. Deeceevoice admitted that she already created African aesthetic with the informations from Cool (African philosophy) "The information from "Cool (African philosophy)" is now it in its proper context, in an article on dealing with the underlying cultural ethos of many traditional African societies. ... Further, I intend to use additional information from this article (in addition to the material that was gutted from it) to continue build the framework for "African aesthetic." (Deeceevoice) [87] CoYep 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I could not make heads or tails of this AFD debate. It was refactored, discussed on the article's talk page, the talk page of the AFD. Deeceevoice was arguing for merging then for keeping. If the content is going to be in African aesthetic we should at least keep the history (redirect/history merge). Kotepho 01:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Lots of confusion and acrimonious discussion on this one here, at the AfD, and on the talk page. A fairly large number of people who seem extraordinarily virulent about wanting to delete this. This is exactly what a no consensus keep-by-default AfD conclusion should be. Flag it with a tag if you think it needs one, let things quiet down, edit it as need be, and revisit in some months once everyone is calm again. Whatever good encyclopaedic content there is (and I have not read it in enough detail to have an opinion on that), let's give it a chance and let's see what it leads to. There is no need to rush. Martinp 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC), who voted No-consensus-keep, which I guess is one of the so-called "unconvincing" keep votes that Proto refers to.
• Endorse closure JoshuaZ 02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Proto et al. Tasteless Humor Comment (no extra charge): Does FrancisTyers' comment above mean that clowns having sex while on parade in Africa would be cool? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:27, 28 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)
  • While being a member of Hitler Youth wasn't a choice, nor is being born Canadian (as an example). I'm not meaning to compare the Hitler Youth with Canadians overall, just in this particular instance of non-choice membership. Could you clarify your position in regards to such lists? Darquis 03:44, 23 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)

Sigh...I guess we can no longer have categories for organizations whose membership is mandatory...my mistake. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:06, 27 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)

I had no idea that all categories were supposed to be "uncontroversial". Lets delete all Nazi-, Scientology-, and Politics-related categories immediately, then. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:08, 27 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)
• Endorse deletion per BorgHunter. DRV isn't for re-fighting *FD. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Membership itself isnt very relevant because entry was mandatory. If a controvery arised as a result however, that may be notable enough to include in the bio. Nontheless, no list, no category would be my inclination. Question is, what to do now with Category:Hitler Youth? The Minister of War ^(Peace) 15:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Being as some people have voted to delete on the basis that Category: Hitler Youth exists, my guess is that it will require a separate CFD...but I guess I'm "biased". savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Borghunter. Unmanageable cat due to enforced participation; notable members will have articles in which that will be mentioned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia only has articles for notable people. Therefore, there is nothing unmanageable about this category. I know that you have been on Wikipedia long enough to understand that notability is implied in all lists and categories. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Borghunter and KillerChihuahua. --kingboyk 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure keep deleted per Borghunter. --FloNight ^talk 09:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

19 April 2006

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 solely 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. [88] 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,^[89] 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<font color="#555555">||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)
• Endorse and keep deleted because it's unverifiable, and nothing which is verifiable may be included on Wikipedia. I direct the attention of the audience to the little line directly underneath the edit box, to wit, "Content must be verifiable." If it is not, then it must be deleted. If reliable sources are found which verify the assertions, a new article may be created without prejudice. FCYTravis 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  ok so lets break it down line by line then shall we?

  "HAI2U is the name of a popular shock site, hai2u.com, which depicts a female vomiting while performing fellatio on a man sitting in a lawn chair, taken from a photo shoot by pornography director Max Hardcore."

  all verifiable by looking at the site itself...

  "The actress featured on the website uses the stage name Catalina and is featured in several of Hardcore's films. The site has the text "HAI2U!!!1 :)" in bold at the top of the page."

  Verifiable by visiting Max Hardcores website and browsing photo galleries...

  "The page is written in w3c validated XHTML 1.0 Transitional markup for officialness, and contains a link visible only in the Internet Explorer browser to make it your homepage."

  Verifiable by visiting the site, and by running it through w3.org's html validator.

  "The site began in May 2005 and now receives tens of thousands of visitors per month."

  Verifiable by visiting the alexa link provided IN THE ARTICLE

  "The website falsely claims that it has been referenced by Time Magazine and The New York Times;"

  hrm... visiting the site proves that it claims this... a simple check with time magazine and a search at NYTimes brings 0 hits ... oops guess this one is verifiable too

  "the traffic and popularity it has garnered is due entirely by word of mouth, person-to-person communication."

  first unverifiable original research statement...

  "The owner of hai2u.com is unknown, since they have enabled domain privacy through Domains by Proxy."

  verifiable with a simple whois...

  "It is thought that the website was started by a member on #maddox on the irc.whatnet.org IRC server, the official channel of The Best Page In The Universe."

  A simple visit to maddox's site backs up that he hangs out on #maddox and the server... and that its called "The Best Page In The Universe" but this still falls as unverifiable speculation

  HAI2U is also an abbreviation of "hi to you", a term used during instant message conversations.

  verifiable...

  WOW 2 whole sentances that arent verifiable... guess this really must be deleted and purged from the face of wikipedia... hell this is more verifiable than our articles on George W. Bush, John Kerry and Richard Nixon. Seriously Travis I dont know who peed in your cornflakes this morning, but dude your seriously in the wrong here with this "unverifiable" crap.  ALKIVAR™ 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • So your concept of a reliable source is: "Hey she looks pretty similar to the girl in this other picture"? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No my reliable source is THE SAME PICTURE in another series on Max Hardcore.  ALKIVAR™ 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, that wasn't clear, but it would be nice to provide a link. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry I cant give the link (requires registration to even load the page... and i'm not giving out a password tied to my credit card #)  ALKIVAR™ 03:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. No consensus for deletion. --Myles Long 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. I am truly regretting voting for Aaron to be an admin. I thoroughly resent being described as an "AfD troll" too. I adhere with the utmost commitment to WP:V and I consider it an abuse to use it as a poor excuse for deleting articles that you don't like. Grace Note 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. There was no consensus. bbx 00:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Everything that Alkivar wrote fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Full stop. - brenneman^{L} 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Anyone who simply states "no consensus" here hasn't addressed the issue. We don't vote on verification, so you might as well be saying "My breakfast was good." - brenneman^{L} 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with you on NOR. Per WP:RS, websites can be used as a primary source about themselves. NOR allows the use of claims that are easily verifiable without any specialist knowledge from primary sources. It still has terrible V problems though and an article should not be entirely reliant upon unpublished works. I cannot find where in our deletion policies that something may be deleted for such reasons without a rough consensus though. Yes, it can be inferred from WP:V, which is part of the trifecta, but it is not explictly stated. "At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." is what our deletion policy says. DGFA is a more lax, but it isn't policy. Should it? I'm not sure. Process does get things wrong sometimes, but I am more worried about admins supplanting their own opinion. Yes, I know V cannot be overturned by consensus, but you should at least get someone to second your opinion. Kotepho 05:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted but lets not make a habit out of this per my comment above. Kotepho 05:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Though personally I would've voted delete, if i've known about it, the fact that this was deleted in a largely questionable manner calls for an undelete + possibly another AfD just because it needs to be done properly again. // Gargaj 10:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Good, solid decision. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Very, very odd close. --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Administrators are not robots. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The redirect to the list of shock pages is good, no reason for this to have it's own article. At the same time, Brenneman's comments to Alkivar verged on incivlilty. Brenneman needs to chill out. --Gmaxwell 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted under WP:IAR. Ral315 (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete as it was deleted contrary to afd consensus, and commend the original nominator for doing the right thing even if they think Wikipedia could do without this article. VegaDark 02:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Solid close. —Encephalon 03:03, 28 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 [90] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[91] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [92] 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. [93] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [94] 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 [95]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [96] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [97] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [98] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [99] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [100] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [101] 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 [102] 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. [103] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [104] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[105] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[106] 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. [107] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [108] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [109] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [110] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [111] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [112] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [113] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [114] 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. [115] 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. [116] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [117] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [118] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [119], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [120] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [121] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [122] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [123] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [124] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [125] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [126] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [127] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [128] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [129] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [130] 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 [131]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. [132] 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