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.

Proposed deletions

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

• none currently listed

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 15}}</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 15}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 15|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".

10 June 2006

theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

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

• Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:

1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [1] - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique. [2]
2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone [3] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [4]
5. MSN [5] and Yahoo [6] print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Wikipedia articles may not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.

In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: [7]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OURS

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

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

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

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

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

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Wikipedia servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
• Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Wikipedia for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.

I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:

• Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
• If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
• Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

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

• I have come to the conclusion that this would probably better fit on Wikibooks. --Improv 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

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

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

• Oh, and trolling for votes is generally frowned on. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Trolling? I never told them how to vote, I only made them aware that the vote was underway.--James Bond 04:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Uh huh. Pull the other one, chum. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist. I have no problem with this page being relisted if they will follow the rules in doing so. BenBurch 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the article makes no claim to notability. Some of the articles mentioned as comparisons should probably go as well (Progressive Bloggers?). When will the consmoderals realize that their blogs, forums and websites are not encyclopedic? -- Kjkolb 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and get rid of the non-notable liberal organization/blogger/website articles as well. --tjstrf 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. AfDs are non-binding, and a previous decision can be revoked by a new AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the article. It can be recreated if new better content and a legitimate claim of notability is made, as is true with many currently non-notable groups that may grow into notability. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

08 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

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

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

Joseph D. Campbell

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

• Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality

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

Church of Reality website

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

• Endorse deletion, close discussion, protect from recreation. This cruft was deleted twice via AfD, and recreated/speedy deleted lots of times thereafter. Process was followed at all times. Sandstein 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect per Sandstein. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion in the name of free speech. 72, please see WP:NOT and WP:N. Endorse deletion, yea, now and forever, amen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no version of any of the incarnations of this article is anything other than self-promotion for a group with, as far as I can tell, no claim of notability being present in any case. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD with a massively overwhelming consensus to delete, no evidence that circumstances have changed since then. Alexa rank of offical site linked to above is 456,440. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation per every reason expressed above. Postdlf 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, protect from recreation and bury with a stake through its heart. This has wasted enough time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Delete. Keep deleted. Protect. Ban the next person who tries to recreate it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to review something if you don't know what it said.--mboverload@ 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sufficient insight is available from the two AfD links above, as well the fun-and-games of the last time this came to DRV, which appears to have found a copy of itself on the talk page of the latter of the two linked to at the top of this review. -Splash - tk 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Allow recreation if this is a real religion AND the recreation can be done in a non-bias way that is similar to other articles on religion, and not just recreated as a self-endorsement.--Azathar 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• It was more recently up for DRV discussion here. Process was followed every time. Endorse closure and protect from recreation. Rossami (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinen's

• Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [8]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. $5/7\simeq 0.714$. Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, [9], Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[10].

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr B B Sinha, with a clear (10-0) consensus to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

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

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

• Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Royboycrashfan does not object to restoration if Tomandlu investigates the copyright issues, so I have restored this. -- SCZenz 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have listed it on AfD, suggesting it be transwikied to Wikisource. User:Zoe|<;sup>(talk) 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

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

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

• Endorse deletion, it may be satirical but it's also divisive and inflammatory to a much higher degree than User Satanism or any of the other endorsed userboxes have been. I actually agree with its view to a certain extent, but delete as valid T1. (Just like User Intercal) --tjstrf 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid T1 deletion (am I really saying that about a userbox?) as I would consider it as having inflammatory content. In either case, it has been userfied and someone could transclude/subst it from there. On a side note, mine would probably be something along the lines of "This user thinks in terms of inches, metres, stones & pounds (what's an ounce?), pints, litres, british imperial gallons and Kilobytes (not to be confused with Kilobytes) and celcius (unless it's hot today)"... blame the '80s. Hmmm, is the actual name of the template Template:User metric-sucks or Template:User Not in metric? TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive. -- The Anome 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you really want it, keep it on your userpage. Not good enough for template: space. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's in your userspace - find something better to do, for the love of God. Proto||type 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it actually is T1. Will (^E_@) T 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at TfD. I didn't agree with the speedy delete. I have seen userboxes that were much worse. Let the community at-large decide at TfD. MJCdetroit 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• (I guess I need to cast my vote!) Relist at TfD. I agree with MJCdetroit. Nova SS 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is it dead? Yes it is (well, almost). So keep it that way. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Forget T1; this is a template in use on one single page. Longstanding convention is to subst and delete such templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Included in only one page? I would say "subst and delete" on a TFD, so the proper thing was done here. Keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion it would be polite to userfy this template a la the German Solution. --Jew Boy 19:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid T1, and in very limited use. Userpage will still look the same, and template space is clean. sorted!. MartinRe 09:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

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

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

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

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

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

• Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Wikipedia for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change to endorse, per Sam. I had not spotted that it was unsourced as well as the other issues. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• No list either please, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- Drini 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning--WilliamThweatt 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no evidence provided in favor of notability. `'mikka (t) 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Homestarmy 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam above. -- The Anome 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on its face. Why is it that every page with the word 'cum' in the title is usually created by a troll and then dragged through DRV? Proto||type 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - --Goran.Smith2 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per sam. No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete -- serbiana - talk 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

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

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article made absolutely no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. Feel free to try again, giving citations from reliable sources to back its significance per the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [17] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So this negative claim will be removed, that's not the reason it was deleted. --Haham hanuka 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [18] - 147,000 result on Google, [19] many results on Google Images. --Haham hanuka 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All active porn performers generate thousands of Google hits, due to the almost infinite crosslinkspamming of the online porn business. Not really meaningful. Fan1967 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - per nomination. Luka Jačov 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not notable. Wikipedia: Notability (erotic actors) is only a proposed guideline. WarpstarRider 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If it doesn't qualify for an A7 speedy, it does qualify as an A6, an attack page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, which was entirely in process - Silensor is misinformed. Proto||type 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Silensor and nomination --Haham hanuka 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yet another porn "star", and no good reasons for undeletion have been advanced beyond that. --Calton | Talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Per arguments already provided above. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Silensor. Tiffany Holliday the famous centerfold model is not the issue here. The issue is process, the only thing that saves us from anarchy. Process is the wikipedian social contract that prevents a rapid and dismal slide into a Hobbessian state of perpetual war. We disregard it at our peril. --JJay 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

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

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

• Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
  • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Begging the question for effect though, since it seems that the vandalism or "meat puppetry" is more important here than the actual "issue in question" of whether Shane Cubis is worth of a bio page. Thanks for highlighting that for everyone. Malthius 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and The Chaser. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
  • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

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

Opponents say:

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

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

• Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
• Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[20][21][22] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I receive an uncertain elephant, the user who places it will likely receive a certain block. Syrthiss 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
    • AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So instead of editing it down, deletion is the answer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because WP:NOT a blog. We already have an article on BB7. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

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

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote now that the closing admin has explained the result of the debate. --Metropolitan90 06:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JD^talk_email 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So, "vote counts aren't everything" but *your* (what amounts to a) vote is everything? --Rob 06:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding that WP:NOT requires deletion as the universal solution to all problems it lists. Many things wikipedia is not, are handled by editing, not deletion. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: "Article needs a lot of improvement" is explicitly not a reason for deletion, but should be cleaned up. Now, once cleaned up (which in this case, could mean radical shrinkage) policy says that if there's not much left ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") it should be handled by merging/redirecting. Nobody here has given an explanation as to why the article *must* be deleted. That is what problem can only be solved via deletion, as opposed to a merge/redirect (with a potential for de-merge if/when sufficient quantity/quality content exists). --Rob 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  It had already been "merged". [23]. —Celestianpower ^háblame 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

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

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Upload to Commons, it doesn't appear to be english, but may be useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

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

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

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

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

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

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

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

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

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [24]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

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.

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.

Proposed deletions

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

• none currently listed

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 15}}</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 15}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 15|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".

10 June 2006

theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

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

• Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:

1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [25] - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique. [26]
2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone [27] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [28]
5. MSN [29] and Yahoo [30] print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Wikipedia articles may not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.

In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: [31]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OURS

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

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

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

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

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

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Wikipedia servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
• Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Wikipedia for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.

I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:

• Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
• If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
• Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

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

• I have come to the conclusion that this would probably better fit on Wikibooks. --Improv 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

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

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

• Oh, and trolling for votes is generally frowned on. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Trolling? I never told them how to vote, I only made them aware that the vote was underway.--James Bond 04:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Uh huh. Pull the other one, chum. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist. I have no problem with this page being relisted if they will follow the rules in doing so. BenBurch 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the article makes no claim to notability. Some of the articles mentioned as comparisons should probably go as well (Progressive Bloggers?). When will the consmoderals realize that their blogs, forums and websites are not encyclopedic? -- Kjkolb 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and get rid of the non-notable liberal organization/blogger/website articles as well. --tjstrf 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. AfDs are non-binding, and a previous decision can be revoked by a new AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the article. It can be recreated if new better content and a legitimate claim of notability is made, as is true with many currently non-notable groups that may grow into notability. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

08 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

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

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

Joseph D. Campbell

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

• Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality

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

Church of Reality website

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

• Endorse deletion, close discussion, protect from recreation. This cruft was deleted twice via AfD, and recreated/speedy deleted lots of times thereafter. Process was followed at all times. Sandstein 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect per Sandstein. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion in the name of free speech. 72, please see WP:NOT and WP:N. Endorse deletion, yea, now and forever, amen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no version of any of the incarnations of this article is anything other than self-promotion for a group with, as far as I can tell, no claim of notability being present in any case. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD with a massively overwhelming consensus to delete, no evidence that circumstances have changed since then. Alexa rank of offical site linked to above is 456,440. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation per every reason expressed above. Postdlf 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, protect from recreation and bury with a stake through its heart. This has wasted enough time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Delete. Keep deleted. Protect. Ban the next person who tries to recreate it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to review something if you don't know what it said.--mboverload@ 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sufficient insight is available from the two AfD links above, as well the fun-and-games of the last time this came to DRV, which appears to have found a copy of itself on the talk page of the latter of the two linked to at the top of this review. -Splash - tk 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Allow recreation if this is a real religion AND the recreation can be done in a non-bias way that is similar to other articles on religion, and not just recreated as a self-endorsement.--Azathar 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• It was more recently up for DRV discussion here. Process was followed every time. Endorse closure and protect from recreation. Rossami (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinen's

• Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [32]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. $5/7\simeq 0.714$. Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, [33], Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[34].

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr B B Sinha, with a clear (10-0) consensus to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

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

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

• Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Royboycrashfan does not object to restoration if Tomandlu investigates the copyright issues, so I have restored this. -- SCZenz 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have listed it on AfD, suggesting it be transwikied to Wikisource. User:Zoe|<;sup>(talk) 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

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

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

• Endorse deletion, it may be satirical but it's also divisive and inflammatory to a much higher degree than User Satanism or any of the other endorsed userboxes have been. I actually agree with its view to a certain extent, but delete as valid T1. (Just like User Intercal) --tjstrf 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid T1 deletion (am I really saying that about a userbox?) as I would consider it as having inflammatory content. In either case, it has been userfied and someone could transclude/subst it from there. On a side note, mine would probably be something along the lines of "This user thinks in terms of inches, metres, stones & pounds (what's an ounce?), pints, litres, british imperial gallons and Kilobytes (not to be confused with Kilobytes) and celcius (unless it's hot today)"... blame the '80s. Hmmm, is the actual name of the template Template:User metric-sucks or Template:User Not in metric? TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive. -- The Anome 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you really want it, keep it on your userpage. Not good enough for template: space. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's in your userspace - find something better to do, for the love of God. Proto||type 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it actually is T1. Will (^E_@) T 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at TfD. I didn't agree with the speedy delete. I have seen userboxes that were much worse. Let the community at-large decide at TfD. MJCdetroit 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• (I guess I need to cast my vote!) Relist at TfD. I agree with MJCdetroit. Nova SS 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is it dead? Yes it is (well, almost). So keep it that way. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Forget T1; this is a template in use on one single page. Longstanding convention is to subst and delete such templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Included in only one page? I would say "subst and delete" on a TFD, so the proper thing was done here. Keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion it would be polite to userfy this template a la the German Solution. --Jew Boy 19:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid T1, and in very limited use. Userpage will still look the same, and template space is clean. sorted!. MartinRe 09:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[35] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

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

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

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

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

• Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Wikipedia for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change to endorse, per Sam. I had not spotted that it was unsourced as well as the other issues. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• No list either please, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- Drini 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning--WilliamThweatt 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no evidence provided in favor of notability. `'mikka (t) 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Homestarmy 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam above. -- The Anome 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on its face. Why is it that every page with the word 'cum' in the title is usually created by a troll and then dragged through DRV? Proto||type 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - --Goran.Smith2 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per sam. No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete -- serbiana - talk 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

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

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article made absolutely no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. Feel free to try again, giving citations from reliable sources to back its significance per the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [41] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So this negative claim will be removed, that's not the reason it was deleted. --Haham hanuka 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [42] - 147,000 result on Google, [43] many results on Google Images. --Haham hanuka 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All active porn performers generate thousands of Google hits, due to the almost infinite crosslinkspamming of the online porn business. Not really meaningful. Fan1967 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - per nomination. Luka Jačov 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not notable. Wikipedia: Notability (erotic actors) is only a proposed guideline. WarpstarRider 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If it doesn't qualify for an A7 speedy, it does qualify as an A6, an attack page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, which was entirely in process - Silensor is misinformed. Proto||type 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Silensor and nomination --Haham hanuka 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yet another porn "star", and no good reasons for undeletion have been advanced beyond that. --Calton | Talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Per arguments already provided above. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Silensor. Tiffany Holliday the famous centerfold model is not the issue here. The issue is process, the only thing that saves us from anarchy. Process is the wikipedian social contract that prevents a rapid and dismal slide into a Hobbessian state of perpetual war. We disregard it at our peril. --JJay 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

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

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

• Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
  • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Begging the question for effect though, since it seems that the vandalism or "meat puppetry" is more important here than the actual "issue in question" of whether Shane Cubis is worth of a bio page. Thanks for highlighting that for everyone. Malthius 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and The Chaser. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
  • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

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

Opponents say:

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

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

• Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
• Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[44][45][46] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I receive an uncertain elephant, the user who places it will likely receive a certain block. Syrthiss 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
    • AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So instead of editing it down, deletion is the answer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because WP:NOT a blog. We already have an article on BB7. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

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

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote now that the closing admin has explained the result of the debate. --Metropolitan90 06:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JD^talk_email 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So, "vote counts aren't everything" but *your* (what amounts to a) vote is everything? --Rob 06:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding that WP:NOT requires deletion as the universal solution to all problems it lists. Many things wikipedia is not, are handled by editing, not deletion. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: "Article needs a lot of improvement" is explicitly not a reason for deletion, but should be cleaned up. Now, once cleaned up (which in this case, could mean radical shrinkage) policy says that if there's not much left ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") it should be handled by merging/redirecting. Nobody here has given an explanation as to why the article *must* be deleted. That is what problem can only be solved via deletion, as opposed to a merge/redirect (with a potential for de-merge if/when sufficient quantity/quality content exists). --Rob 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  It had already been "merged". [47]. —Celestianpower ^háblame 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

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

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Upload to Commons, it doesn't appear to be english, but may be useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

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

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

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

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

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

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

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

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

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [48]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

Proposed deletions

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

• none currently listed

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.

Proposed deletions

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

• none currently listed

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 15}}</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 15}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 15|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".

10 June 2006

theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

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

• Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:

1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [49] - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique. [50]
2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone [51] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [52]
5. MSN [53] and Yahoo [54] print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Wikipedia articles may not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.

In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: [55]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OURS

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

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

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

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

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

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Wikipedia servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
• Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Wikipedia for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.

I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:

• Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
• If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
• Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

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

• I have come to the conclusion that this would probably better fit on Wikibooks. --Improv 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

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

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

• Oh, and trolling for votes is generally frowned on. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Trolling? I never told them how to vote, I only made them aware that the vote was underway.--James Bond 04:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Uh huh. Pull the other one, chum. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist. I have no problem with this page being relisted if they will follow the rules in doing so. BenBurch 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the article makes no claim to notability. Some of the articles mentioned as comparisons should probably go as well (Progressive Bloggers?). When will the consmoderals realize that their blogs, forums and websites are not encyclopedic? -- Kjkolb 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and get rid of the non-notable liberal organization/blogger/website articles as well. --tjstrf 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. AfDs are non-binding, and a previous decision can be revoked by a new AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the article. It can be recreated if new better content and a legitimate claim of notability is made, as is true with many currently non-notable groups that may grow into notability. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

08 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

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

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

Joseph D. Campbell

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

• Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality

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

Church of Reality website

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

• Endorse deletion, close discussion, protect from recreation. This cruft was deleted twice via AfD, and recreated/speedy deleted lots of times thereafter. Process was followed at all times. Sandstein 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect per Sandstein. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion in the name of free speech. 72, please see WP:NOT and WP:N. Endorse deletion, yea, now and forever, amen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no version of any of the incarnations of this article is anything other than self-promotion for a group with, as far as I can tell, no claim of notability being present in any case. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD with a massively overwhelming consensus to delete, no evidence that circumstances have changed since then. Alexa rank of offical site linked to above is 456,440. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation per every reason expressed above. Postdlf 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, protect from recreation and bury with a stake through its heart. This has wasted enough time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Delete. Keep deleted. Protect. Ban the next person who tries to recreate it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to review something if you don't know what it said.--mboverload@ 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sufficient insight is available from the two AfD links above, as well the fun-and-games of the last time this came to DRV, which appears to have found a copy of itself on the talk page of the latter of the two linked to at the top of this review. -Splash - tk 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Allow recreation if this is a real religion AND the recreation can be done in a non-bias way that is similar to other articles on religion, and not just recreated as a self-endorsement.--Azathar 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• It was more recently up for DRV discussion here. Process was followed every time. Endorse closure and protect from recreation. Rossami (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinen's

• Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [56]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. $5/7\simeq 0.714$. Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, [57], Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[58].

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr B B Sinha, with a clear (10-0) consensus to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

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

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

• Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Royboycrashfan does not object to restoration if Tomandlu investigates the copyright issues, so I have restored this. -- SCZenz 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have listed it on AfD, suggesting it be transwikied to Wikisource. User:Zoe|<;sup>(talk) 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

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

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

• Endorse deletion, it may be satirical but it's also divisive and inflammatory to a much higher degree than User Satanism or any of the other endorsed userboxes have been. I actually agree with its view to a certain extent, but delete as valid T1. (Just like User Intercal) --tjstrf 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid T1 deletion (am I really saying that about a userbox?) as I would consider it as having inflammatory content. In either case, it has been userfied and someone could transclude/subst it from there. On a side note, mine would probably be something along the lines of "This user thinks in terms of inches, metres, stones & pounds (what's an ounce?), pints, litres, british imperial gallons and Kilobytes (not to be confused with Kilobytes) and celcius (unless it's hot today)"... blame the '80s. Hmmm, is the actual name of the template Template:User metric-sucks or Template:User Not in metric? TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive. -- The Anome 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you really want it, keep it on your userpage. Not good enough for template: space. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's in your userspace - find something better to do, for the love of God. Proto||type 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it actually is T1. Will (^E_@) T 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at TfD. I didn't agree with the speedy delete. I have seen userboxes that were much worse. Let the community at-large decide at TfD. MJCdetroit 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• (I guess I need to cast my vote!) Relist at TfD. I agree with MJCdetroit. Nova SS 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is it dead? Yes it is (well, almost). So keep it that way. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Forget T1; this is a template in use on one single page. Longstanding convention is to subst and delete such templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Included in only one page? I would say "subst and delete" on a TFD, so the proper thing was done here. Keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion it would be polite to userfy this template a la the German Solution. --Jew Boy 19:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid T1, and in very limited use. Userpage will still look the same, and template space is clean. sorted!. MartinRe 09:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[59] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

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

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

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [60], [61], [62], [63] and [64]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

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

• Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Wikipedia for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change to endorse, per Sam. I had not spotted that it was unsourced as well as the other issues. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• No list either please, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- Drini 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning--WilliamThweatt 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no evidence provided in favor of notability. `'mikka (t) 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Homestarmy 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam above. -- The Anome 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on its face. Why is it that every page with the word 'cum' in the title is usually created by a troll and then dragged through DRV? Proto||type 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - --Goran.Smith2 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per sam. No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete -- serbiana - talk 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

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

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article made absolutely no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. Feel free to try again, giving citations from reliable sources to back its significance per the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [65] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So this negative claim will be removed, that's not the reason it was deleted. --Haham hanuka 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [66] - 147,000 result on Google, [67] many results on Google Images. --Haham hanuka 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All active porn performers generate thousands of Google hits, due to the almost infinite crosslinkspamming of the online porn business. Not really meaningful. Fan1967 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - per nomination. Luka Jačov 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not notable. Wikipedia: Notability (erotic actors) is only a proposed guideline. WarpstarRider 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If it doesn't qualify for an A7 speedy, it does qualify as an A6, an attack page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, which was entirely in process - Silensor is misinformed. Proto||type 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Silensor and nomination --Haham hanuka 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yet another porn "star", and no good reasons for undeletion have been advanced beyond that. --Calton | Talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Per arguments already provided above. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Silensor. Tiffany Holliday the famous centerfold model is not the issue here. The issue is process, the only thing that saves us from anarchy. Process is the wikipedian social contract that prevents a rapid and dismal slide into a Hobbessian state of perpetual war. We disregard it at our peril. --JJay 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

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

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

• Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
  • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Begging the question for effect though, since it seems that the vandalism or "meat puppetry" is more important here than the actual "issue in question" of whether Shane Cubis is worth of a bio page. Thanks for highlighting that for everyone. Malthius 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and The Chaser. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
  • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

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

Opponents say:

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

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

• Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
• Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[68][69][70] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I receive an uncertain elephant, the user who places it will likely receive a certain block. Syrthiss 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
    • AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So instead of editing it down, deletion is the answer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because WP:NOT a blog. We already have an article on BB7. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

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

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote now that the closing admin has explained the result of the debate. --Metropolitan90 06:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JD^talk_email 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So, "vote counts aren't everything" but *your* (what amounts to a) vote is everything? --Rob 06:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding that WP:NOT requires deletion as the universal solution to all problems it lists. Many things wikipedia is not, are handled by editing, not deletion. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: "Article needs a lot of improvement" is explicitly not a reason for deletion, but should be cleaned up. Now, once cleaned up (which in this case, could mean radical shrinkage) policy says that if there's not much left ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") it should be handled by merging/redirecting. Nobody here has given an explanation as to why the article *must* be deleted. That is what problem can only be solved via deletion, as opposed to a merge/redirect (with a potential for de-merge if/when sufficient quantity/quality content exists). --Rob 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  It had already been "merged". [71]. —Celestianpower ^háblame 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

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

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Upload to Commons, it doesn't appear to be english, but may be useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

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

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

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

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

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

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

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

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

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [72]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

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 15}}</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 15}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 15|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".

10 June 2006

theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh

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

• Undelete, Relist - I strongly object to the deletion. The article was deleted without taking into account the arguments posed in objection to the original deletion request. I profoundly believe the article deserves a place in our community as there are severe criminal impacts 'spoofed sms' pose to society. theSMSzone.com is also mentioned in the wiki entry for sms under Criminal Impact further increasing its notability. Ahmedsays 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let's examine each "keep" argument from the AfD in detail:

1. over 48000 relevant backlinks to theSMSzone can be found with the terms "theSMSzone.com" [73] - blatant untruth, clicking on the provided link shows only "about 22" backlinks, and if you click to page 2, only 11 of these are unique. [74]
2. seems like this website pioneered SMS spoofing hence is a valuable asset to the WIKI community - no sources provided for this claim either within the AfD (and I daresay, in the article itself), therefore unverifiable.
3. theSMSzone.com was the first website in the world that allowed users to define a "From" number. - yet another unsourced nugget.
4. I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. Please use the keywords "spoofed sms" in google for clear evidence on the impact this startup had on text messaging. - seems this editor has not heard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites. And a search for spoofed SMS theSMSzone [75] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [76]
5. MSN [77] and Yahoo [78] print a totally different picture - thousands of results. Doesnt look like 'corporate' spam to me. - to this editor it may not, to the rest of us, it does. The top hit on the MSN search is a PRweb press release, and the top Yahoo! search result is the site itself. Again not a good omen, no WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.
6. Lastly, SMS spoofing is also listed as having a criminal impact on society in the wiki entry for SMS with the 'sms zone' pinpointed as the cause. - Wikipedia articles may not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, so if this one had to depend on the SMS article to live, then it really shouldn't have survived AfD.

In summary, the closing admin was right to discount the weakly-reasoned "keep" votes, which made no mention of how the website or its founder satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BIO respectively. Consensus was correctly determined, with disregard to sheer number of votes. Keep deleted, no new information has surfaced to justify undeletion. (Link to Google cache version of the article: [79]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OURS

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

I have three distinct and independent objections to this deletion:

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

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

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

John Reid 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist per nom. Posts on a mailing list do not count as "creation" of a page - only its presence on Wikipedia servers count. Kimchi.sg 05:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We've been through this. It's not worth having. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-06-10)
• Relist, though Rapheal1 is anything but a user in good standing, judging by the number of disputes he's involved in. --tjstrf 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This is a proposal for a system of admin - user relations proposed by a banned user, copied from the mailing list but with some parts missing (which may violate GFDL). The basic intent its to prevent admins from blocking POV pushers. The original draft from User:Rgulerdem stated in the last draft I saw on the list that we should abide by well-established policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics - this was comprehensively rejected as an attempt to endorse censorship. Both Resid Gulerdem and Raphael Wegmann are keen to override the consensus on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy by removing or not displaying the images, I find it hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to introduce policy to allow them to override consensus and evade admin attention. The policy as written stands is likely to attract every POV pusher and problem editor; it is instruction creep and it is neither necessary nor welcome. Oh, and it's the work of a banned user while banned. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, relist. The merits of this proposal a) do not exist, but b) are not substantive to here. At the moment, there was no process followed regarding this deletion, and it should run its course and be soundly rejected on its merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Divisive nonsense from a banned user. NoSeptember 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Relist. I'd like to see more discussion of the sources used to write the synopsis, and whether detailed description is a clear copyvio. The original AfD looks more like a no consensus to me (yes, I know, it's "not a vote".) I'm not sure whether to count the "merge" votes as keep votes ("keep the content") or delete votes ("delete the page"), but that's a secondary issue. Deltabeignet 05:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It was originally deleted as being original research, if you fixed that it should be fine. Also, might I remind you that AfD is not technically a vote. Personally, I would suggest rewriting the article in a substantially different manner, and if it gets deleted AGAIN, bringing it here. --tjstrf 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (disclaimer - argued for delete in afd). The closing admin outlined his reasoning for coming to deletion as based on the arguements given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. What is the main article for, if not a synopsis of the film? Work on that article instead. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Regretfully endorse deletion. The article actually was rather well-done, and I do hope that this content survives elsewhere, but the level of detail makes this feel out of place on an encyclopedia, and similarly may make us vulnerable to claims of copyvio. A brief synopsis has its place on the article's entry -- a detailed separate-page synopsis does not have a place here -- when the synopsis is close to enough to recreate the film, something's not right here. I believe the decision was correct, and as for how it was reached, it's not unusual for people closing VfD to analyse the arguments as well as weigh the numbers. It's a judgement call. JasonP, if you want my help to find a better home than Wikipedia for this content (which you've put some time into, I notice), drop me a note on my talk page, and we'll figure something out. --Improv 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The big question, to my mind, is whether the article can be given inline references to make it crystal clear which facts come from which sources. I am also worried about how one could quickly check whether anything in the article is close to being a copyright violation. In my opinion there isn't really a bright line between where presenting, organizating, and synthesizing published sources leaves off, and original research/personal opinion begins. I am very troubled that the list of sources was not added until the last minute.

I'd like to ask User:Jason Palpatine these questons:

• Are the books he cites physically in his possession?
• If I had read and absorbed half a dozen books and then wrote an article this long from my personal knowledge, I estimate that it would take me many hours to locate the source in each book that justifies the major items in the essay. (And in the process I would expect to find that my memory had betrayed me several times). Is User:Jason Palpatine prepared to do this?
• Does the material in this article truly come from the sources, or is it based on the editor's observations of watching the film itself? If so, how should this be cited? I've suggested several times that I would be happy considered a DVD to be a "published source" but that I'd like it to be cited by giving the exact published version of the DVD and identifying incidents in it by, say, number of minutes into the film.

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

• I have come to the conclusion that this would probably better fit on Wikibooks. --Improv 16:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Underground

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

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

• Oh, and trolling for votes is generally frowned on. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Trolling? I never told them how to vote, I only made them aware that the vote was underway.--James Bond 04:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Uh huh. Pull the other one, chum. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist. I have no problem with this page being relisted if they will follow the rules in doing so. BenBurch 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as the article makes no claim to notability. Some of the articles mentioned as comparisons should probably go as well (Progressive Bloggers?). When will the consmoderals realize that their blogs, forums and websites are not encyclopedic? -- Kjkolb 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and get rid of the non-notable liberal organization/blogger/website articles as well. --tjstrf 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. AfDs are non-binding, and a previous decision can be revoked by a new AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no evidence of significance. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. No assertion of notability was made in the article. It can be recreated if new better content and a legitimate claim of notability is made, as is true with many currently non-notable groups that may grow into notability. NoSeptember 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

08 June 2006

Boring Business Systems

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

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

Joseph D. Campbell

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

• Comment The reason I closed as no consensus was because the only arguments I could see against deletion was "not sourced" or "The sources aren't good enough" - since the page already has some sources (even if they couldn't be verified by myself), I couldn't see any reason to delete. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD I made the point in the AfD discussion that we should probably hold it off, and possibly redo the whole deal because the sources finally came to light only a day or so before the end of the process. Even if the sources are weak (and I never said they weren't), the first deletion votes were made under the assumption that pretty much no sources existed at all, which is unfair (and I'm usually fairly exclusionist regarding things like this). I would not be opposed to deleting it outright, but wouldn't prefer it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist It's clear there wasn't much of a discussion on notability. The closing was premature. --Kchase02 T 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist and since it was closed no-consensus, this does not require DRV's permission. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete the concern about lack of notability and verifibility was unaddressed in my view, with nothing backing up notability claims, and limited sources (one of which was an letter to editor) for any possibly verification. No predujuce about re-creation if further sources backing notability claim are found, but also no reason to keep in the meantime for something that may or may not happen. Regards, MartinRe 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Church of Reality

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

Church of Reality website

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

• Endorse deletion, close discussion, protect from recreation. This cruft was deleted twice via AfD, and recreated/speedy deleted lots of times thereafter. Process was followed at all times. Sandstein 08:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect per Sandstein. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 10:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion in the name of free speech. 72, please see WP:NOT and WP:N. Endorse deletion, yea, now and forever, amen. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no version of any of the incarnations of this article is anything other than self-promotion for a group with, as far as I can tell, no claim of notability being present in any case. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD with a massively overwhelming consensus to delete, no evidence that circumstances have changed since then. Alexa rank of offical site linked to above is 456,440. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect from recreation per every reason expressed above. Postdlf 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, protect from recreation and bury with a stake through its heart. This has wasted enough time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Delete. Keep deleted. Protect. Ban the next person who tries to recreate it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to review something if you don't know what it said.--mboverload@ 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sufficient insight is available from the two AfD links above, as well the fun-and-games of the last time this came to DRV, which appears to have found a copy of itself on the talk page of the latter of the two linked to at the top of this review. -Splash - tk 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Allow recreation if this is a real religion AND the recreation can be done in a non-bias way that is similar to other articles on religion, and not just recreated as a self-endorsement.--Azathar 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• It was more recently up for DRV discussion here. Process was followed every time. Endorse closure and protect from recreation. Rossami (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Heinen's

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinen's

• Strong Overturn, Undelete. A top 100 Ohio business; clearly passes WP:CORP; was already cited on Supermarkets in the United States, therefore clearly notable (and meant to be given a wikipedia page); not to mention has MORE stores in its chain, has a HIGHER sales volume, occupies a LARGER region, and has MORE information supplied than many businesses that have ALREADY been given Wikipedia pages: Westborn Market, Woodman's Food Market, Strack and Van Til, Scolari's, Magruder's, Felpausch, and many more. AS CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE, I would also like to comment on my extremely upsetting experience in posting this article. I have already given all of these reasons NUMEROUS times in defense of my article, and I have proven in my previous posts that my article should be granted a Wikipedia page. It was speedily deleted without hardly any consideration or supplied reason except that more people had posted DELETE than had posted KEEP - a 1 vote majority in fact (yes 1 vote). NO OTHER REASONING was provided to account for its deletion! I spent a great deal of time describing the business and how it is definately influential and notable. My arguments it seems were not considered at all and were simply left out of the matter. My article was not biased, and it was not created as advertising. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS ARTICLE as it clearly deserves a Wikipedia page. [80]. If the article is undeleted, I WILL add to it. Bluebul1989 06:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• In terms of pure numbers (standard disclaimer AfD is not a vote etc), the close was borderline, with 66% or 60% for deletion, depending on whether Bluebul1989's opinion is counted (as a new user who has so far only edited in relation to this article and is the sole editor to do so, the admin can choose to do so or not). That would often be closed as 'no consensus', defaulting to keep, but it is very much within the admin's discretion. However, in this case, I don't think the reasons to delete are that pressing. I don't believe that the article was created as self-promotion - if I had I would certainly endorse deletion. Bluebul claims to be a 16-year-old Ohian on WP:NEW and this is supported by a Google search for his username. Although I find the WP:CORP claim to notability dubious (the top 100 companies in every state of the USA being automatically notable sounds rather Americentric), DRV is not the place to debate that, and the other arguments for it being notable sound reasonable. Therefore, I suggest overturn as a no consensus and undelete without prejudice against a further AfD to gain a clearer consensus in a fortnight or so after Bluebul has improved it further. P.S. Bluebul, you don't need to shout. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. A 66% delete vote is insufficient to delete, better to have no consensus'ed it and see what happens from there. THE KING 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. 66% can be sufficient to delete if the reasoning to delete is compelling enough. In this case I think the reasoning isn't compelling enough, but this misconception needs to be challenged wherever it appears. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn IMO, important enough for a reasonable article to be written. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted AfD is indeed not a vote, so by ONE VOTE doesn't matter, as its to be determined by community consensus. In this case, however, it is 5/2 if we throw out bluebul's and Laximus's comments as being too new at the time. $5/7\simeq 0.714$. Aside from the raw numbers, you may want to read Rough consensus on the reasoning behind the supposed lack of counting. Many of the delete users all conceeding WP:CORP as being against it. One person believed in notability, another used a claim that there were already other non-WP:CORP-adhering on the page already, which could've been interpreted as admitting WP:CORP as well. I can see why the article was deleted, even if WP:CORP sets a very high bar. There was really nothing that wrong about the deletion. Sorry. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• It's a local supermarket chain. I shop there regularly. But it's not automatically notable for an international encyclopedia. There is not enough to say that will ever let this expand past the stub stage. And until they get a lot bigger or better known, there can't be. Endorse closure as within reasonable administrator discretion. By the way, I am unpersuaded by the argument that we must/should keep this article because we have not yet cleaned out other even less encyclopedic articles. We should be raising standards for the project, not racing to the lowest common denominator. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn The people who marked delete did so before reason was provided as to why it was actually notable under WP:CORP and by no reasons were given contrasting the evidence put forth by blubul stating that it passes the second part for notability under WP:CORP (of which it only needs to pass one part). Laximus 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question Can you be more specific about how the company meets WP:CORP? I'm looking at the AfD, and blubul's arguments, and I don't quite see it. Fan1967 05:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices, produced by well-known and independent publications, of important companies" (WP:CORP). According to this independent listing of top Ohio businesses between 2003 and 2004, [81], Heinen's was ranked within the top 100 both years. Bluebul1989 05:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• That criterion means indices like the Fortune 500. The index cited does not give a sales volume, and the ranking appears to be based solely on number of employees. 2,200 em ployees is a fair-sized chain, but I would question whether it is evidence per WP:CORP. What's needed are things like sales volume, whether publicly traded, nett value of the business, number of stores - objective measures of significance, in other words. A genuinely significant business will have more than a single source stating that it is significant, sop please provide the others. Just zis Guy you know? 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Also note that it ranks in the list of the top 100 private companies, most of which are so small they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the top 100 if they were publicly held. Fan1967 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BB Sinha

For clarity here is the article log[82].

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr B B Sinha, with a clear (10-0) consensus to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I have already restored, as I was the speedying admin. I didn't notice that Mike Rosoft had already rejected the "repost" argument. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone close this, it's been speedily restored. also, drop me a note of the templates for closure on my Talk if you wouldn't mind. I'm sure it's here somewhere blindingly obvious, but I didn't see it... Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

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

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

• Restore, tentatively pending an explanation for this from Royboycrashfan—no explanation is obvious at the moment. I do not see what grounds there were for speedy deletion. There may be copyright issues, although I am not certain because the poem dates from 1915, but an article that old should not have been speedied without discussion. -- SCZenz 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Royboycrashfan does not object to restoration if Tomandlu investigates the copyright issues, so I have restored this. -- SCZenz 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have listed it on AfD, suggesting it be transwikied to Wikisource. User:Zoe|<;sup>(talk) 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

07 June 2006

Template:User Not in metric

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

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

• Endorse deletion, it may be satirical but it's also divisive and inflammatory to a much higher degree than User Satanism or any of the other endorsed userboxes have been. I actually agree with its view to a certain extent, but delete as valid T1. (Just like User Intercal) --tjstrf 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid T1 deletion (am I really saying that about a userbox?) as I would consider it as having inflammatory content. In either case, it has been userfied and someone could transclude/subst it from there. On a side note, mine would probably be something along the lines of "This user thinks in terms of inches, metres, stones & pounds (what's an ounce?), pints, litres, british imperial gallons and Kilobytes (not to be confused with Kilobytes) and celcius (unless it's hot today)"... blame the '80s. Hmmm, is the actual name of the template Template:User metric-sucks or Template:User Not in metric? TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Divisive. -- The Anome 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you really want it, keep it on your userpage. Not good enough for template: space. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's in your userspace - find something better to do, for the love of God. Proto||type 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it actually is T1. Will (^E_@) T 16:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at TfD. I didn't agree with the speedy delete. I have seen userboxes that were much worse. Let the community at-large decide at TfD. MJCdetroit 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• (I guess I need to cast my vote!) Relist at TfD. I agree with MJCdetroit. Nova SS 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is it dead? Yes it is (well, almost). So keep it that way. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Forget T1; this is a template in use on one single page. Longstanding convention is to subst and delete such templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Included in only one page? I would say "subst and delete" on a TFD, so the proper thing was done here. Keep deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion it would be polite to userfy this template a la the German Solution. --Jew Boy 19:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid T1, and in very limited use. Userpage will still look the same, and template space is clean. sorted!. MartinRe 09:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Bats

This article on a band was properly deleted as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats. However, I'm listing for reconsideration here in the light of subsequent developments that may alter that judgment, namely the release of an album under (what appears to be) a major label.[83] The article's original author also claims the following additional facts (which I have not verified myself):

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

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

Overturn, undelete. Has anything new been presented? Not...really. The band has recently been featured in Canada's Exclaim! magazine, not small potatoes, as well as a feature on Canadian 106.7 FM. It's important to note that the band met WP:MUSIC guidelines BEFORE the AfD, and that was ignored. The prior meeting of the necessary guideline in the first AfD and further media mentions since then more than mean the deletion should be overturned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undelete -- the evidence above seems to show sufficient notability. -- The Anome 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Overturn, Undelete. The album is out, theyve made more public appearances and the tour scedule has been updated to include a cross country tour with some major bands. I was ignored during the first vote, please dont ignore me now. All claims can be verified on these websites: [84], [85], [86], [87] and [88]. They have met more than 1 of the notability claims. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak undelete playing on MTV Live (Canada) has to have some notability along with some magazine mentions. THe amazon link is not impressive, but ASIN B000FKOZLA is funny. What kind of viewship does MuchLoud/Music get? Our stub is not helpful. Kotepho 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cum On Her Face

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

• Strong undelete - Luka Jačov 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - per Luka. --Pockey 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• The article was speedied as an A7 (person or organization with no claim of notability). It's actually more of a website than an organization, and although I doubt it meets WP:WEB, that doesn't make it speediable. I don't think we're going to find any good independent reliable sources. Still, why not give it its day on AfD? Undelete and list at AfD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD if we must, but I really see no need for this article. It's just another porn site, of which there is surely no dearth, and I really can't imagine anybody actually coming to Wikipedia for information on it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Change to endorse, per Sam. I had not spotted that it was unsourced as well as the other issues. Just zis Guy you know? 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• No list either please, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- Drini 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning--WilliamThweatt 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no evidence provided in favor of notability. `'mikka (t) 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Homestarmy 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam above. -- The Anome 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on its face. Why is it that every page with the word 'cum' in the title is usually created by a troll and then dragged through DRV? Proto||type 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete - --Goran.Smith2 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per sam. No convincing reason given to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete -- serbiana - talk 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AlternC

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

Manny 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article made absolutely no assertion of encyclopaedic notability. Feel free to try again, giving citations from reliable sources to back its significance per the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Tiffany Holiday

Short and Good [89] article speedy deleted by User:Drini and User:Golbez, edit summaries were "csd nnbio" and "[empty]". There was no vote. Many many results on Google, has an IMDb and AFDb profiles and also pass Wikipedia:Notability (erotic actors) for having a recored of around 100 films --Haham hanuka 14:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow, this ended up at page bottom today (June 7); not sure why it's dated earlier, but I have moved it for consideration. Xoloz 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging by the answers.com link, I think the fact the stub is short, and contains a poorly sourced negative claim, means it should not be restored. Instead, anybody who wishes, can create, a new original article, which clearly explains her notability, and which is well sourced. --Rob 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So this negative claim will be removed, that's not the reason it was deleted. --Haham hanuka 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I do not see any claim of notability in the article. Removal of potential libel of a possibly non-notable person is a bonus. No prejudice about recreation at this point. - Liberatore(T) 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As above, no claim of notability (one bit part in a real film, balance is the usual no-budget porn churned out at the rate of several a day by some "studios"). No reliable sources for any of the bio data (IAFD is not, unlike IMDB, a reliable source per WP:RS). Redux: dime-a-dozen porn "star". Take it to Wikiporn. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [90] - 147,000 result on Google, [91] many results on Google Images. --Haham hanuka 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All active porn performers generate thousands of Google hits, due to the almost infinite crosslinkspamming of the online porn business. Not really meaningful. Fan1967 20:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Comment on process, not about content, this should be restored immediately as an improper speedy deletion. Holiday appears to be a more than notable enough actress for inclusion, we do not delete articles outright because they contain an unverified or unverifiable claim. Silensor 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Up to a point: process is there to guide us, policy is policy, and in the end there is no good reason to take up the community's time with debating articles which are functionally unverifiable. Deleting it does not prevent someone from coming along and creating a real article which makes some credible claim of notability and which is cited from reliable sources. WP:SNOW applies. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - per nomination. Luka Jačov 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not notable. Wikipedia: Notability (erotic actors) is only a proposed guideline. WarpstarRider 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If it doesn't qualify for an A7 speedy, it does qualify as an A6, an attack page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion, which was entirely in process - Silensor is misinformed. Proto||type 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Silensor and nomination --Haham hanuka 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yet another porn "star", and no good reasons for undeletion have been advanced beyond that. --Calton | Talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Per arguments already provided above. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Silensor. Tiffany Holliday the famous centerfold model is not the issue here. The issue is process, the only thing that saves us from anarchy. Process is the wikipedian social contract that prevents a rapid and dismal slide into a Hobbessian state of perpetual war. We disregard it at our peril. --JJay 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane Cubis

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

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

• Overturn Shane Cubis is a notable Australian journalist, being a major contributor to an important Australian media group, The Chaser. The Chaser has made itself an important part of Australia's culture, being read by politicians, mainstream journalists and ordinary Australians. Shane's weekly columns attract large amounts of reads and discussion. His work for People magazine, while not being as well known, has attracted large amounts of attention from mainstream Australia. JoshT 220.237.79.202 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under case A7. The entire contents of the longest version of the article read "Shane Cubis (born 1980) is a writer, originally from Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Shane's first article was a Teri Weigel porn review in the Tertangala, Wollongong University's student newspaper. Since then he's contributed to a variety of gaming magazines including Pyramid, Knights of the Dinner Table and the Silven Trumpeter. He currently has a weekly column in The Chaser and works for Australia's People Magazine." and one external link. Writers are part of a respected profession but are no more automatically notable than engineers or doctors of equivalent experience or standing. No assertion has been made that this writer is particularly significant or that he does qualify under our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. By the way, the deleted history shows that the only significant contributor to this page was user:Rubikcubis, supporting the assumption that this was an inappropriate autobiography. The user's subsequent edits to other pages do not insprire me to good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Rossami's excellent reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indeed. Syrthiss 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's clear from Cubis's own website that he was the original author, and he's encouraging people to come here to recreate it and complain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse - per WP:VAIN. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and recommend that keen editors take the usual steps to moderate the inclusion of the subject's name and its variants in Wikipedia. There's is much outrage, followed by subterfuge, at the deletions. -Splash - tk 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with thanks to Rossami for presenting a solid case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: while the original article may be questionable as vanity, there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance and fame in the Australian political journalism / satire sphere that one of his fans should be allowed to create a page with information about him. The defacement of other pages with his name is consistent with the style of humour The_Chaser is famous for in Australia, not an indication that there is any lack of merit in the need for a "Shane Cubis" page on Wikipedia. "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is". Malthius 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC) User's first edit
  • there is little doubt that Shane Cubis has enough importance... Guy, since that's the very issue in question, you're begging the question. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Begging the question for effect though, since it seems that the vandalism or "meat puppetry" is more important here than the actual "issue in question" of whether Shane Cubis is worth of a bio page. Thanks for highlighting that for everyone. Malthius 10:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No new information, and the old information was unconvincing to begin with. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While no-one is denying that the original source of the article was Shane himself, that does not necessarily invalidate the merit of the article itself, and was more a function of the humour that has made him popular. Regardless of the American or British-centric knowledge of the original two administrators who deleted the article, their ignorance of the Australian media and in particular the satirical politcal area which is the expertise of the article subject in question does not mean it lacks significance. As an Australian, I guess I might equally wonder why something so incredibly minor and unimportant as a 3 year old racehorse such as Like_Now without even a particularly impressive record demands its own Wikipedia page, where a published journalist does not. U.Pseudonopoulos 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was a logical discussion and the weight of our argument would count for more than how many edits we had made to this website. Is this how all discussions are settled on Wikipedia? We simply get out our 'edit counts' and compare them, with the larger number winning? Perhaps we could both get out our wangs and compare those as well? Or do you want to try and actually add some value to the debate? Could you perhaps explain to me why Shane Cubis is less notable than the nag of a racehorse I have linked above? Is it simply because one is American and the other Australian, regardless of species? Are angsty teenagers with a lack of knowledge of other countries really fit to determine what adds to the grand sum of human knowledge? U.Pseudonopoulos 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Suffrage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Noted, and I can see the idea behind such in some cases, particularly where people are simply putting a vote without reasoning or detailed comment. I still hold that it has no relationship to the validity of the argument presented. "There are no strict rules for this, the admin closing a discussion is expected to use common sense", and in this case the only people voting without significant reasoning are the 'endorsers'. I find it irrelevant to the arguments that I and others have offered whether it is our only edits or not. The arguments should still be treated on the merit of what it presented itself. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis is notable within the fan base of The Chaser. He is a major columnist for the site and well respected author in a variety of other media. His other edits on Wiki have surely not affected his notability or his work as a writer/comedian. Gisellehobbs 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and The Chaser. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn If for no other reason than his fellow journalists Chas_Licciardello, Chris_Taylor and Craig_Reucassel all have their own pages that provide just as much (or little, depending on how one is to view it) information about them. Is there any proof that these other journalists didn't write the articles themselves? Perhaps Shane Cubis is being punished for making a simple mistake - he wrote the article about himself in first person instead of third. Any of his fans would be happy to write the article to prevent it from remaining vanity if that is the main complaint, but he is certainly famous and/or popular enough to warrant an entry. Purpleorb (for clarity sake, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.177.2 (talk • contribs) )
  • This is an excellent point. Are all of these journalists significantly more notable than Cubis? He is also listed near Tim Brunero in The Chaser enterprise article, and the Brunero article has no more content or merit than the original Cubis article. If the Cubis article does not comeback, I purpose some of these other articles be removed for parity in this category. JustOneJake 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion CSD A7 -- The Anome 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Yes, Mr. Cubis may have originally written the article as a vanity piece for his article. That does not mean a compliant article could not be written. It is clear many people here are willing to write an article in the confines of Wikipedia policy. Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth, as he is drawing support from his article at The Chaser and his Antiwikipedia entry. As it stands now the page is protected deleted. Why not unprotect it and give someone a chance to write a compliant article? 63.225.118.147 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preventing an actual article could also turn out to be more hassle than its worth. Is that a threat? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on the discussions on the forums at his article and the actions members of that forum have taken (silly vandalism to both here and the Wiktionary, I'd say that it's clearly a threat. Metros232 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you guys kidding? It’s no threat; it is an assessment of the facts. These people want a real article, and if there is a real article they will have less to complain about. Furthermore, do the actions of people unto Wikipedia affect the notability status of Cubis? Most of the discussion here is completely irrelevant to the facts. I am sure the guys at Britannica or Funk and Wagnalls never sat down and talked about their hate mail when deciding to include an entry. This man is at least as noteworthy as some of the other people on Wikipedia, and he deserves an article regardless of the actions of himself or others. 63.225.118.147 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Sounds notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no verifiable notability proof presented. `'mikka (t) 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Shane is one of only three weekly column writers for The Chaser. The Chaser is a very popular website in Australia, very much similar to The_Onion in terms of content and (local) popularity. It is important to note that, as a columnist, Shane writes articles which are put on the website under his own name. He is not writing anonymously, but offering his opinion under his name. As such, it is expected that people will want to find information about the author, so as to get background to form a view on the validity of his opinion. As such, I feel the author is notable and, as such, an appropriate page on the author should not be prevented from being created. U.Pseudonopoulos 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep/endorse deletion Attracting lots of sock puppets filled with meat, see the URL in the history]. People are being instructed how to go here JUST to request this overturned. This guy really is not notable, and the speedy is fine. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle

Proponents say:

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

Opponents say:

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

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

• Comment. Article exists under both Certainty principle and Certainty Principle in various forms. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle, which deleted this content as original research. I re-deleted this article because although this content was not identical, the original reason for deletion was unchanged. User:Hryun has claimed that the article is published in a Russian journal, but several physicist Wikipedians have looked for signs of this publication (or indeed the existence of the named journal) and found nothing; Hryun refuses to provide further details. You can see discussion of these issues, as well as more threats by User:Hryun, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Certainty principle. -- SCZenz 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Taking off my admin hat, and putting on my WikiProject Physics hat, I would like to note that this issue has all the hallmarks of original research. A very pushy series of editors, most of them with very similar editing styles, have been pushing to have this subject mentioned in about 8-10 different physics articles. A discovery of the claimed magnitude would have many, many citations in places that would be very easy to find, and this does not. The only document that can be located by any of the usual methods—which are essentially universal for all physics publications worldwide, is the paper itself on the ArXiv and related servers—which are not peer-reviewed in any way. No publication information is given there. -- SCZenz 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • SCZenz, for what reason do you lie here? (1) The Certainty Principle article was created by Slicky. I am not Slicky neither in WP nor in the real life. Ask for user-checking, if you do not believe. I just re-created the article under proper name, Certainty principle. There was no cheating in it. (2) You did not ask for "further details" of the journal, you asked for information that can be seen in the Internet. Hryun 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be civil. I don't think you are Slicky, but I do strongly suspect you're editing under a couple of other usernames. I do not believe that there are any reputable physics journals with no information available on the internet, however—Russian journals are tracked in the same places as all the others. -- SCZenz
• Keep deleted until the concept gets taken up by someone other than the original auther. We'll watch CiteBase. --Pjacobi 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The AfD clearly labeled this material as original research and despite the requester's allusions no evidence to contradict this determination has been provided. The AfD should stand until citations to appropriate peer-reviewed sources are provided. --Allen3 ^talk 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted - Based on the information on hand, this is OR. If this is indeed a valid scientific theory, material will be peer reviewed and can be verified.. There should be no rush to have a wiki article on a subject (re "the material is too new to have been properly circulated" above); its not like we are going anywhere. Syrthiss 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:NOR. As Syrthiss says, we can afford to wait until this is independently sourced. Rossami (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, for reasons above. This does not presently return anything on CiteSeer or citebase. It's important to be sure that authors are not inserting their own, non-peer-reviewed work to Wikipedia, or it would quickly become a repository for anything unpublished and unpublishable. There is further the fact that, if this were really what it is claimed to be, that it would probably already have been picked up by some very well known, reputable and reliable publications. At that point, inclusion would be a no-brainer. -Splash - tk 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. As far as I can tell, both the term "Certainty principle" and the concept are original research, as we define it. When the article is published — or even referenced — in a peer-reviewed journal, we can reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - per above. Wait for it to be peer-reviewed by someone who knows. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. When the work becomes well-known and the author is hailed as the great theorist he claims to be then I'll happily enjoy contributing on a million articles about him and his great work. Until then it goes into the "makes very large claims that nobody in-the-know seems to take seriously" bin. I also don't appreciate "Hyun"'s threats about waging a "war" against Wikipedia if he doesn't get his article included.[92][93][94] --Fastfission 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two well-informed editors reviewed this and found it to be WP:OR, no evidence is provided to contradict this conclusion. No citations to reputable peer-reviewed journals, for example. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Jacobi. --Improv 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Mathematical deletion endorsement -- Drini 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion agreeing with everything said above. Hyun, it will only become a war if you make it so and do not accept WP process. You have stated that there is no consensus. I think the above is a very clear consensus. Nobody agrees with you. Please accept this until and if this principle is widely accepted and discussed in many reputable places. If this is as important as the claims made for it, it would have been discussed by now in "Nature", Scientific American", "New Scientist" and so on, along with references in "Reviews of Modern Physics" and similar journals. This is not yet WP material and may never be. --Bduke 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Are all of us who endorse this deletion going to receive the Uncertain Elephant Award as those of us who supported the original deletion, or indeed were in any way involved with it, did? --Bduke 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I receive an uncertain elephant, the user who places it will likely receive a certain block. Syrthiss 13:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Big Brother 7 chronology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother 7 Chronology

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

• Overturn: At least have the page there until the series is over and the page can be condensed. --JD^talk_email 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was the page deleted? Celestianpower says at the top of the page that the result of the debate was deleted. The results were: 6 for "delete"; 11 for "keep"; 1 for "weak keep" and 1 for "strong delete"!!! I think it's pretty obvious that more people want to keep the page than delete it!! Ellisjm 16:36 UTC 6 June 06
    • AfD is not a vote. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be true, but good reasons for having the page stay were still brought up. Even if only until the end of the series, the page is worth having in peoples' opinions. --JD^talk_email 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. People who wanted the article deleted seem to have more grounds than those who wanted the article kept. — FireFox • 16:44, 06 June '06
• Endorse deletion per FireFox. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Reasons given for deletion were in line with WP policies and guidelines; reasons given for keep were mostly "But I want to keep it" variety. Process was followed, deletion is valid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn for violation of process. I would have voted "delete", as this does look like non-notable TV cruft, but the result of the debate was no consensus. The keep voters may have been uninformed, but Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators allows only disregarding bad faith votes when establishing consensus, and few such are apparent here. I know of no policy that allows the closing administrator to determine consensus on the basis of which side they agree with. Sandstein 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The guidelines say that for example comments made in bad faith may be ignored. In general, the guidelines say admins should use their common sense to determine if a rough consensus exists and should try to remain as objective as possible — they don't provide strict rules for doing this, since no such rule can exists. (Anyway, it's not a "vote".) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Neither side had arguments that were all that compelling, and closer was not at all clear as to his/her rationale for the decision. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse- this was a reasonable decision. Possibly the DRV could have been avoided tho, if the closer had given more reasoning about why they closed the way they did. Friday (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, a level of detail far in excess of anything which could possibly be justified by any encyclopaedic purpose. BB7 is more than adequately covered in the main article. This is a fan blog and belongs on a fan site: it is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information.. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not meant to be a blog; it's meant to keep the main article small. --JD^talk_email 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there some objective measure you're using to make this statement? At what point is it not excessive anymore? Why is detail bad? etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm measuring it by the articles for other comparable series. We're a couple of weeks in and already it's longer than many articles on entire series. And this is BB7, not BB1, so it is less notable in the first place. What we have here is a blog, a day-by-day log of events. That's one of the things Wikipedia is not. I have nothing against logging this info at a user subpage for later distillation into an actual article, but speaking as a Brit and part of the target audience this is considerably beyond the defensible encyclopaedic content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • So instead of editing it down, deletion is the answer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because WP:NOT a blog. We already have an article on BB7. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: am I correcting in thinking that people think this article is necessary so that at the end of the show it can be reduced into something encyclopedic? That seems to be what was being said at the AfD, but I just want to verify that before making a decision. Metros232 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That was the plan. --JD^talk_email 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should store it somewhere else and repost it when it's encyclopidic. WP isn't a dumping ground for random information. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then in that case, restore and move to user space. Put it someone's user space so it can be worked on as a future article rather than having it in the mainspace as an actual article. Metros232 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and keep deleted - Wikipedia is not a democracy. The closer based his decision of the strengh of the arguments, not the amount. I agree with User:Friday that the closer should have stated this more clearly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per above, restoring to the userspace would also be quite acceptable. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the result of the discussion was keep and not by a small margin. I completely agree with Ellisjm that the article was wrongly deleted.

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

• Overturn and Undelete for being out-of-process. --Rob 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, closure seems to have been within acceptable bounds of discretion. Most of the arguments provided by either side in the debate were rather weak, but some of the arguments for deletion were slightly less weak that the arguments against it. I'm quite willing, however, to userfy the deleted content upon request (a possibility some of the participants in the original debate appear to have been unaware of). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It just makes more sense to have the page in the main Wikipedia area while it exists, because it still has the information that many people may find useful. If that ends up being the only other option, then it may end up happening. But I'm sure you can see what I'm trying to say. --JD^talk_email 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is, if it were in the main namespace it would have to satisfy the Wikipedia policies regarding article content. As it is, it seems to have trouble meeting several, including no original research, reliable sources and several parts of what Wikipedia is not. In short, it is unencyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy somewhere by all means but keep deleted per above. Metamagician3000 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I would rather delete this article but the discussion was at most a "no consensus", not a "delete". --Metropolitan90 02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote now that the closing admin has explained the result of the debate. --Metropolitan90 06:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, Wikipedia is not a free web host for TV blogs, no-one even attempted to argue that this information belonged in an encyclopaedia, process was correctly followed. If it doesn't belong on the main BB7 page then it doesn't belong anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The things is, that's exactly the point - people do think it belongs on the main article page. But the people that think it belongs there don't want it to be anywhere else. They don't care about how big the main article could become with that information on it. --JD^talk_email 11:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion--cj | talk 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/deletion, administrator has the right—nay, the obligation—to evaluate the merit of the arguments in terms of the goal of the project. When such a decision is not obvious, however, it should be explained in detail. -- SCZenz 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per KillerChihuahua. What's the point in having an article just for it to be deleted in a few weeks time (i.e. 'keep until the end of the series'). This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is fancruft of the worst sort. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Closing admin pretty much ignored the entire AfD process, sending the message to everyone that he valued only his own input on the subject. That's not how AfD is supposed to work. --Hyperbole 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A severely inadequate closure method, but the right decision nevertheless. This was plainly not encyclopedia material, being essentially a diary of some people traipsing around a building for a few weeks. -Splash - tk 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion. However, close decisions like this deserve more than just "The decision was delete" in the closure of the discussion. This argument could largely have been avoided if the closing admin had taken the time to fully lay out his/her reasoning. Rossami (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the closing admin on this AfD, I apologise for any extra trouble this has caused. Clearly I should have put forward my reasoning in the summary/the decision field: "When closing this AfD, despite there being more "keep" votes than "delete", the strength of arguments from the delete camp seems much stronger. WP:NOT is policy and this seems a clear case of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', as many voters pointed out. Also, AfD is not a vote: vote counts aren't everything". Once again, I apologise and will learn for next time. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So, "vote counts aren't everything" but *your* (what amounts to a) vote is everything? --Rob 06:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Strength of arguments needs to be balanced with number of arguers, and it seems reasonable to disregard input that lacks any reasoning. --Improv 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remain Deleted The AfD itself was filled with people who were rabid fans on the show, with all their arguements being all the minute details(read: minor, incidental things) be left off of the television show's main page. Pages were being used to hold any info about show and daily summaries like it were a fan page. That's not what wikipedia is about. Kevin_b_er 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Celestianpower made a completely correct decision. Proto||type 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding that WP:NOT requires deletion as the universal solution to all problems it lists. Many things wikipedia is not, are handled by editing, not deletion. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: "Article needs a lot of improvement" is explicitly not a reason for deletion, but should be cleaned up. Now, once cleaned up (which in this case, could mean radical shrinkage) policy says that if there's not much left ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") it should be handled by merging/redirecting. Nobody here has given an explanation as to why the article *must* be deleted. That is what problem can only be solved via deletion, as opposed to a merge/redirect (with a potential for de-merge if/when sufficient quantity/quality content exists). --Rob 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  It had already been "merged". [95]. —Celestianpower ^háblame 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiPâques.png

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

• Re-upload to Commons, so any project can use it, and Commons is outside of enwiki's jurisdiction. --Rory096 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Upload to Commons, it doesn't appear to be english, but may be useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

05 June 2006

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

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

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

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

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (Userspace draft)

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

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

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

• Comment - Is there any evidence that it has grown significantly in popularity? The Alexa rating is five digits, and a quick scan of Google turns up lots of self- and friend-promotion, but not much analysis or commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has there been any stories, interviews, or other coverage in mainstream or semi-mainstream press (not counting simple lists of webcomics)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• What has changed since deletion? As noted above, the fundamental problem was a lack of evident encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
      • WebComicList (a non-trivial published site that is independent of the site itself) has its own article, stated in the external links section. The web comic has ablso been the subject of debate on multiple community-based forums, such as eBaum's World Forums, SNAFU Comics Forums, and VG Cats Forums. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That article on WebComicList is one sentence, as part of a list of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, then, since this is a single trivial reference rather than multiple non-trivial references. We have no deadline to meet, we can afford to wait until it is genuinely notable and has atracted enough external attention to allow a verifiably neutral article to be written. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Categorical undelete. This article has had very poor defense in the past. I did not see it mentioned that Dr. McNinja is a member of Dayfree Press, a very well-known collective in the webcomics community and therefore a peer to heavyweights such as Questionable Content and Dinosaur Comics. It has been brought up on the talk page that extreme bias has been built up against this article because of its rocky faring in the past. I would point out that there is no shame in accepting it now -- it does not undermine Wikipedia or any of the users who have criticized it; rather, it is a testament to our sometimes rigorous standards. It is now due time to recognize this professional-level webcomic, as anyone vaguely familiar with this online community must know of its near meteoric rise. Let's not be reactionary or snobbish; much lesser topics have their due recognition already. --BDD 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this comic was under Dayfree Press, yet this information seems to strengthen my resolve even more. Remember: if you can read it, if you can comprehend it, if you can learn from it...it isn't trivial. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember (though I can't find the proper documentation, and it's possible that this was changed) a policy that members of the most prominent webcomic collectives merited articles. It's a sound policy. --BDD 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm the one who locked McNinja down as a {{deletedpage}}, but I agree with BDD. We may want to table this until the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards come out next month. I think there's a good chance McNinja will win one, and if it does, there won't be any question it will have met WP:WEB. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete: I havn't read much of it, but I have seen references to it in other webcomics such as Bunny [96]. Also undelete per Abe. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Definitely notable per talk of deleted page.--Eloquence* 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 June

1. Okashina_Okashi - Decision of the original closer to relist at AfD is endorsed. 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Dismal's Paradox - Relisted at AfD. 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
3. User:SPUI/jajaja - Nomination withdrawn. 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
4. List of political leaders widely regarded as totalitarian - Request for information answered. 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed. 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
6. Cultural references in Pokémon - Deletion endorsed. 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
7. Fluffy (The Lion King) - Deletion endorsed. 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
8. Kelly Roberti - Copyright issue resolved, restored. 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Review
9. Image:Pierre Janssen.jpg - Commons image, action impossible here. 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Review
10. Neanderthal theory of autism - Deletion endorsed. 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Be bold, Be Bold - Overturn RfD and revert to WP:BOLD. 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Jeff Lindsay - Deletion endorsed. 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
13. "State Debate Associations" - Deletion endorsed. 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Review
14. How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 - Deletion endorsed. 17:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Kinston Indians - Deletion endorsed. 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
16. Wikipedia:SCAG - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Image:Nuvola 64 apps important.png - undeletion impossible; deleted prior to 16 June 2006. 13:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Review
18. Sick Nick Mondo - Deletion endorsed for now, pending AfD outcome for related Nick Mondo; should that survive, this is a suitable redirect. 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review

    Nick Mondo having survived AfD, this is restored as a redirect. 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

19. True Torah Jews - Deletion endorsed. 18:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
20. UCIP - Deletion endorsed. 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Mending Wall - Keep endorsed. 11:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) - Deletion endorsed. 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
23. TheSmartMarks.com - Deletion endorsed. 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
24. Dirt pudding - Transwiki and deletion endorsed. 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Kirill Makharinsky - Deletion endorsed. 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
26. Armando Lloréns-Sar - History restored, maintained as redirect; merge issues are an editorial concern for article's talk page. 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Hollywood Undead - Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Trexy - Closing administrator agreed to relist AFD. 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak - No consensus closure endorsed. 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Knox (animator) - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Lightsaber combat - Keep closure endorsed. 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
32. Stone Trek - Deletion closure endorsed. 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
33. File:944 h.jpg - DRV closed, image in Commons jurisdiction. 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
34. Sadullah Khan - Undeleted, relisted. 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Atromitos - Undeleted. 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Walk To Emmaus - Deletion endorsed. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Review
37. Wikipedia:Conservative notice board. Kept deleted. Strong endorsement. 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Review.
38. Lost: The Journey - Relisted. 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
39. User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster - Undeleted. 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
40. The Lost Boys (demogroup) - Relist. 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Second War (Harry Potter) - Deletion endorsed. 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
42. IRCDig - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Saryn Hooks - Undeleted and relisted at AfD. 17:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Template:Major_programming_languages - template content restored 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) review
45. Strategic Policy Consulting - Deletion endorsed. 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Actuarial Outpost - Kept kept, mistaken nomination. 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Image:WikiPâques.png - Uploaded to Commons, as suggested. 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
48. The Esplanade Mall - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
49. Sydney Ling - AfD result of "no consensus" endorsed. 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Siberian language - Deletion endorsed. 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Burlington Center Mall - Challenge of no consensus afd withdrawn. 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Erik Möller - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
53. theSMSzone.com and Kunal Singh - Deletions endorsed. 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Wikipedia:OURS - Deletion endorsed by narrow majority. 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
55. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis) - Deletion endorsed. 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
56. Conservative Underground - Deletion endorsed. 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Boring Business Systems - AfD reopened by acclamation. 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Joseph D. Campbell - Previous AfD overturned, to be relisted at AfD. 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Church of Reality - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
60. Heinen's - Result reversed by consensus, AfD now closed as "no consensus". 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
61. BB Sinha - Restored, listed at AfD. 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (deleted at AfD 20:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)) Review
62. Mending Wall - Restored, listed at AfD, closed as keep, brought here again (above). 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Cancer Bats - Restored, to be resubmitted to AfD in light of new evidence. 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
64. Cum On Her Face - Deletion endorsed. 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
65. AlternC - Deletion endorsed. 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Tiffany Holiday - Deletion endorsed. 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
67. Shane Cubis - Deletion endorsed unanimously (excepting discounted anons/newbies.) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Certainty principle - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Big Brother 7 chronology - Deletion endorsed. Will userfy upon request. 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki - action reverted by the closer. AFD reopened. 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Review
71. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja - Consensus to permit userpage draft as new recreation, will be submitted to AfD. 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cory kennedy - Deletion endorsed. 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
73. User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics - Kept deleted unanimously. 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Yar - Deletion endorsed without prejudice to unrelated redirect now at title. 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
75. List of midnight movies - Content restored for merge and redirect. 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
76. AK Productions - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
77. FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together - Undeleted and sent to AfD. 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
78. List of tongue-twisters - Deletion endorsed in light of new Wikiquote transwiki. 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
79. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics - Deletion endorsed. 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Roosters1908, Sydneyroosters1909, and Sydneyroosters1910 - Undeleted to be AfD'ed in light of new evidence. 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
81. National Hockey Leaque player lists - Restored speedily and AFD reopened. 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
82. User:AKMask/log - Restored (by a narrow margin) to be sent to MfD. 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Male Unbifurcated Garment - Deletion endorsed (again -- Second DRV in two weeks.) 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Review
84. Penis banding - Deletion endorsed. 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Review
85. Template:User no notability - Deletion narrowly endorsed. (date unavailable, deletion review never archived) Permalink
86. Syed Ahmed - deletion endorsed, redirected to The Apprentice (UK series 2) 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Ho Shin Do - deletion endorsed without prejudice 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
88. Israel News Agency - article content restored 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
89. Delaware County Intermediate Unit - Deletion closure endorsed. 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
90. Steve Bellone - Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
91. Team NoA - Previous version restored, survived AfD as no consensus. 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
92. Springfield M21 - Restored as redirect with history. 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
93. The drips - Speedy deletion contested, overturned; sent to AfD. 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
94. Template:Voting icons - Deletion endorsed unanimously. 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
95. Ali Zafar - New NPOV recreation permitted. 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
96. Barbara Bauer, The Literary Agency Group and others - Bauer undeleted and kept at AfD; others kept deleted. 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
97. Scienter - deletion overturned. 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
98. Auto repair shop - original speedy deletion endorsed, without prejudice to now-existing distinct redirect at this title. 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
99. Wikipedia v search engines - deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
100. Pat Price - deletion overturned unanimously, no need to relist. 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
101. Talk:Brian Peppers - kept deleted. 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Review
102. The Juggernaut Bitch - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
103. South Coast League - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
104. Other side of the pillow - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
105. Joel Leyden - article content restored 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
106. Sharting - deletion endorsed 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
107. User:Disavian/Userboxes/Green Energy - deletion endorsed, narrowly 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
108. Left-wing terrorism - article history restored 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
109. Stella Maris College Scout Group - deletion endorsed 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
110. List of Michael Savage neologisms - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
111. Superhorse - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
112. Exicornt - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
113. Image:Lock-icon.jpg - deletion endorsed 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC) review
114. College Confidential - article content restored 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
115. Tim Dingle - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
116. Abstract People - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
117. Christian views of Hanukkah - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
118. Claught of a bird dairy products - deletion endorsed 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
119. LIP6 - continue from rewritten version 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
120. Hulk 2 - redirected to Hulk (film) for now 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
121. Xombie - article content restored 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
122. Possible wars between liberal democracies speedy-deletion undone by deleting admin. listed to AFD. 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC) review
123. Gary Howell deletion endorsed. 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
124. New Sincerity - deletion endorsed. 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
125. Successful Praying - speedy deletion as copyvio endorsed. 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
126. Videohypertransference - user copy granted. deletion from articlespace endorsed. 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) review
127. Oz Categories 8 endorse, 5 overturn, deletion endorsed. 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Review

Userbox discussions

• Template:User no notability - deletion endorsed, narrowly 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• Template:User organ donor template content restored 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) review
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian See WP:TGS
• Template:User satanist kept deleted
• Template:User cannabis kept deleted
• Template:User CCP - kept deleted. 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User against fox hunting (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW. Massive endorsement.)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)