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".

13 June 2006

IRCDig

This article was deleted due to notability claims that were false. IRCDig is just as notable, if not more notable than most torrent search engine articles wikipedia decides to keep. The deletion discussion was split amongst keep and delete votes. The article followed all criteria for a valid article and then some. This article was incorrectly afd'd and should be re-instated. The supporters of deletion argued that the author was the only one that had contributed to the article but what they failed to realize was that the article was only like a week old. LOL... I discovered it when it was in it's afd discussion and contributed a keep vote and would have contributed to the article if I would have had time to see it. KernelPanic 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• AfD here. Whether the website is truly notable or not, this is a textbook proper close. Endorse closure unless notability can be accurately verified. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And what is the official wikipedia process for verifying notability? You say it was a text book closure whether the site is notable or not then you say you endorse the closure until the notability can be accurately verified? Which one is it? If wikipedia is going to allow it's admins to delete articles due to notability then there needs to be a clear and concise process for verifying notability. Until this happens, it is completely open to personal interpretation, which is ALWAYS going to be a mistake due to personal biases. KernelPanic 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not "until," "unless." I'll gladly petition to overturn the closure if you can provide some sort of evidence that this is a notable thing. The "admins" didn't delete this, as much as a consensus by a not-insignificant number of fellow editors felt deletion was the correct path, and no claim was made by you or the other editor stating keep to make any sort of notability evident. I'm one of the most inclusive editors on here, and I'm not even convinced that this program is worth an article at this stage. Seriously, prove me wrong and I change my view. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Show us how it meets the standards of WP:WEB "the official wikipedia process for verifying notability" as you requested. This means independent news coverage and/or awards for the site. Lots of Google hits does not make something notable. My username gets 13,300 hits...am I notable? Metros232 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the same respect, using Alexa as a source of showing something as being not notable is not an accurate method either, which is what the afd argument was based on. There are numerous articles about ircdig and numerous other discussions on independant news groups, message boards, etc. You can use the very same google search you condemned to find these artcles. I agree that the amount of information that google has indexed on a particular thing does not make it notable, but I would say that over 3000 uniques a day from over 115 different countries does. Was this article really clutterinh up wikipedia so much, or offending other editors so much that it just had to be removed? wikipedia has become a joke. Now I know why so many people talk trash about it. It is full of a bunch of immature kids who like to try and use their so called "power" to dictate what articles say and what articles even exist. Keep it deleted if it makes you that happy. It is not even worth the argument anymore. The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end. Maybe you should delete your entire site according to your own regulations. The only press I see about wikipedia is negative press (Criticism of Wikipedia). Does that make it notable? KernelPanic 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Lately all the press that George W. Bush gets is negative, is he still notable? :) And to think, I'm a Republican and yet I make that kinda statement. None of the Google hits I see are news articles. This is the closest [1]. There's also one that's a press release from IRCDig. The first one is not a reliable source and press releases don't count for notability.

The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end.

Or could it be that no one's looking for the article because it's not notable? The amount of hits he gets on his site from our article matters so little to our consideration of whether or not to keep an article since we're not a source of advertisement for websites. Metros232 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Relisting to generate more discussion would have been a viable alternative, but the two keep commentators both are new enough contributors and had weak enough points that ignoring their presence is a reasonable decision on the part of the closing admin. Nothing in the AfD or the discussion above asserts that the article met WP:WEB, the topic specific notability guideline. The bit about "only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article" indicates that the article was viewed as an advertisement. Advertisements are a direct violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a section of one of the basic policies. As to the other torrent sites, if they are truly not worthy of being kept, their articles will go to eventually. No hurry, but consistency is not required, and taking our time has benefits. GRBerry 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Properly closed, did not assert notability. -M^ask 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. No evidence of notability, and the fact of an article not being advertising is not sufficient grounds to keep it when there is clearly not enough reliable external coverage to ensure neutrality. Just zis Guy you know? 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. Robertsteadman 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)

If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. Xoloz 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. Robertsteadman 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law as it applies today to items published today. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime. All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article. The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its copyright had already lapsed under the old law. It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Wikipedia is a violating the law. Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum. Prior to 1923, all published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law. Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer User:Brad Patrick. He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law. I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Wikipedia is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. Xoloz 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.

• Endorse closure. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not. I am compelled to wonder once again if User:Robertsteadman and User:Robsteadman are related. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Saryn Hooks

Article was AfD'd today, and deleted speedily per A7 after only three votes. Article certainly asserts notability, and frankly, I would have voted Keep.

Content was, more or less, "Saryn Hooks, of Taylorsville,North Carolina, placed third in the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee. She was reinstated after the judges realized they had the incorrect spelling of hechsher. She is fourteen years old and hopes to become a doctor."

Recommend undeletion and relisting at AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain for the moment. Coming third in a spelling bee is certainly not an impressive claim of notability. The judges got her word wrong? Woop de do, I don't think that'll be up there with the Mano de Dios in the Top 100 Shocking Sporting Moments on Channel 4. However, I'm not quite prepared to say that this should be snowballed, hence the abstention. It wouldn't have killed anyone to let this run its course. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Couldn't this detail simply be merged into the article for the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee as a bit of interesting trivia? --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's not very interesting? If it had affected the outcome of the game it would be important, but the girl went out anyway. Looking at the article, I don't see anywhere obvious to insert a mention, and it seems like a very inconsequential thing to start a new '==Trvia==' section with. But if you can do better than I, you don't have to wait for the article to be undeleted to edit the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically, any subject could be merged into another article as a short blurb rather than a real article, but that doesn't really do us justice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and complete AFD The reinstatement is also an assertion of notability. How often does a reinstatement occur? Without knowing this, which only an AFD discussion can address, we can't tell if there is notability. GRBerry 15:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why go to lengths - participation and high placement themselves are assertions of notability! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, reopen AFD A claim of notability necessitates an AFD. --Rob 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, certainly not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not fair for me to vote since I deleted it, but I just wanted to say that this met speedy deletion criteria in my view. I am not opposed to letting the AFD run its course if that is the outcome of this review.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per nom. BoojiBoy 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per nominator. Silensor 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Reviewing the articles on some of the winners of this competition, they would be far better combined a single article (and this one with them). Unless and until they achieve some lasting notability, an article which says that X attended foo school, won a spelling bee one year, and since then has not been mentioned in any reliable sources, would be a clear and unambiguous delete for any adult. I can't believe we're even considering keeping an article on someone whose sole claim to fame is that they came third. Come on, people! The reliable sources contain maybe two facts: the competition and the school. Just zis Guy you know? 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

12 June 2006

User:Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF and User:Winhunter/Userboxes/No-CCP

This user is opposed to online censorship.

This user opposes the Chinese Communist Party.

Both userboxes are in the userspace according to the German Userbox solution, but an admin deleted both of them, saying "T1 deletion as per CSD and Tony Sidaway arbcom case." in the deletion log. I do not believe speedy deletion would apply on userboxes in userspace in these two uesrboxes, especially when there are consensus on German Userbox Solution. --WinHunter^(talk) 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list at MfD - I think these userboxes must necessarily be deleted at MfD, but I think that, in this case, it's worth it to go back and list them there. Other opponents of userboxes, please consider my reasons. (I'm the same one who's argued passionately against not digging up the dead to rebury them.) We have a choice right now: we may start another userbox brouhaha, or not. Let's choose not to. Let's be smart about it this time, and do what Jimbo actually suggested. Once the boxes are in userspace, let's use reason and dialogue to explain why they're a bad idea. Let's do that by taking them to MfD for deletion instead of speedying them, and creating the conditions for much more congenial discussion, where explanation and development of reasons can actually go on in more cooperative spirit. Let's not ruffle feathers with speedy deletions, and then try to have that same conversation at DRV, where it's much more difficult on account of people being upset, and the constant drive to not talk about the content being deleted, but the validity of the deletion instead. This is a crappy place for the conversation to happen. We're not required to speedy polemical pages in user-space. We are free to apply the "if it walks like a template" criterion, or not. Please consider that we can do this encyclopedia a greater service by being a little more slow and deliberate about dealing with the userbox problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at MfD - I dislike these 2 boxes but am convinced by GTBacchus' points. Kimchi.sg 03:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, and send to MfD Case 1: EFF box. It is anything but obvious that this is inflammatory. It is anything but obvious that this is divisive. Heck, Wikipedia, by policy, is not censored. If there is anyplace that this should not be divisive, it is Wikipedia. This one looks like a clearly erroneous speedy deletion, and possibly should just be overturned without sending it to MfD, as I think a keep outcome is the appropriate MfD result. Case 2: Opposes CCP box. Better addressed on MfD than via a speedy deletion, as per GTBachus' argument above. The inflammatory case is debatable, given that the CCP already attempts to ban the citizens of mainland China from seeing Wikipedia, and that those who circumvent the firewall are unlikely to be the CCP's strongest supporters. GRBerry 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• I do not believe endless TFDs, MFDs, and DRVs are the correct way to resolve this issue. I think it's time to try the final step in dispute resolution. --Cyde↔Weys 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Which is...? If it's "take it to someone who can set binding policy", I agree with you. Jay Maynard 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• ArbCom is the final step of dispute resolution. --Cyde↔Weys 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted These fall under T1. T1 applies to userspace templates still. Would it be better to delete these through TFD or MFD? I believe so, but they have shown that they do not produce correct results w.r.t. to policy. Process is only important if it works. Kotepho 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not democracy. Why are MfDs closed against policy just because the numbers say so? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't know. Why are Gay Nigger Association of America and The Game (game) still around? Their sources are certainly scant.

  I do want to echo your request that userboxes in User: should be taken to *FD instead of speedied in most cases, but the debates need to be closed on their merits instead of numbers. That is not to say that all templates in user space should be taken to *FD--as many are fine in user space--but there are still templates that are so odious that they must be deleted from user space also. I believe that "user against $POLITICAL_PARTY" falls under such a condition, even if I happen to agree with that position. The EFF box is a bit different--enough that it probably should be discussed seperately. "This user supports the EFF" is something that I believe is inappropriate, but not so much that it needs to be deleted immediately. In its current form I believe that T1 is applicable. Kotepho 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  It is in userspace, what do you think about this? Jimbo on Userboxes --WinHunter ^(talk) 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else. - Jimbo Wales I like it a lot. I would add this bit though. I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.[2] On "it is in userspace": I have no idea what you are replying to, as no one disputes that. Kotepho 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I am reasonably certain that Winhunter was referring to this quote: [3] (too long to copy). It is, after all, the one he linked to. —Mira 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  This one [4] too, actually. —Mira 08:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes... from the first diff, and I already quoted from the second diff? The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results. Personally, I'm not a big fan of people using their user pages (or editing the encyclopedia) to advocate their points of view (and Jimbo agrees). How are these boxes anything other than that? Notice how Jimbo doesn't say "Oh I think that is fine", he says "this might work for now, but try and talk some sense into them". Talking hasn't worked; and most of these comment are from months ago. On the issue of substed versus transcluded in userspace, it is not a distinction without a difference. Kotepho 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I haven't seen talking given much of a chance to work. I've seen people try to bypass talking, by just deleting a bunch of boxes repeatedly, and creating conditions for people to feel they're being attacked. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at MFD agree with GTBacchus. The speedy deletion of userboxes has been far more divisive than any userbox could ever be. —Mira 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete Nothing wrong with either these userboxes or WP:GUS. jgp 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete User space is sacred territory!  Grue  07:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. First one is merely unnecessary, second is a childish attempt to piss off the editors you're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia with. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Question. How is the second one going to piss anyone off? Wikipedia is banned where anyone would actually support the Chinese communist party, because of the chinese communist party. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Userspace is not sacred, and must follow policy like anywhere else. --Improv 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Userspace is absolutely fine for userboxes. I don't use them, but I had asked Tony Sidaway about them at User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Random_Userbox_question. He seemed to think they were OK in the userspace, and I disagree that a T1 CSD criterion can apply to the userspace. Because if we can apply other CSD criterion to the user space, then we should delete a crapload of nn-bios and nonsense right now. - Hahnchen 08:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it looks like a duck, and transcludes like a duck, and quacks "Hey you! Your government and your political opinions are evil! By the way, would you like to write an encyclopaedia with me?" like a duck, it's probably a duck and therefore subject to criterion for speedy roasting T1. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are these boxes being treated differently to anything else on the user page? Are we no longer allowed to write down out beliefs on our userpage? If I write on my userpage "Evolution is fact", it's OK? But if I put it into a box, it's crossing some kind of line? If so, I seriously suggest we start at User:SPUI and work on from there. - Hahnchen 09:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I have no problems with people wrting down their beliefs on their userpage within reason, I do have a problem with encouraging others to write down the same beliefs by handing out bumper stickers. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  If you know of any recreated deleted articles being used in userspace as they would be in article space (i.e. inside article categories and/or linked from article space) please remove such links/cats, tag it g4, or bring it to mfd. Kotepho 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Naturally, categorisation or crosslinking from the mainspace to the userspace should not be allowed. I myself have made this error when working on new articles in my userspace. However, the relevance to this conversation seems very little. Many times I have seen 'Userfy' used in deletion discussions, so recreations in the userspace aren't entirely g4 material. - Hahnchen 09:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Of course it does not apply to all templates, but ones that are divisive and inflammatory are fair game even in user space. Examples of such happening would be User Anti-UN and User Anti-ACLU. How is No-CCP significantly different? Kotepho 10:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. POV userboxes but in userspace, which is what the German solution calls for. We have generally granted wide latitude in that area, including clear biases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The whole idea of WP:TGS is to take forward Jimbo's endorsement of how userboxes are handled on the German Wikipedia. He has said that POV should be allowed in user space far beyond what is allowed in template space. Also, I'm strongly against extending T1 to user space. Show me the policy discussion covering that interpretation, please. --StuffOfInterest 10:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If I may quote Jimbo's suggestion regarding the failed UPP proposal: "The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive." CharonX/talk 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The stated reason that a user-page comment to the effect of, 'I hate people with mauve skin' inside a rectangle has not been allowed while 'I hate people with mauve skin' outside a rectangle has been allowed was that the 'rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'Template space' and might therefor theoretically be taken to imply that Wikimedia encourages or tolerates the hating of people with mauve skin... while the 'not in a rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'User space' wherein it is more clearly the statement of the individual user(s). Ergo, if a disputed viewpoint resides entirely in user space it does not fall under the stated reason for removal of such from template space... whether it is enclosed in a rectangle or not. Does that make the hating of mauve people a good thing which we should encourage? Of course not, but to date we haven't taken the position that we can (or should) police the content of all userpages to remove any disputed viewpoints. If someone writes on their user page, 'I am gay and have been married to my partner for three years now' we do not remove it on the grounds that 'gay marriage is divisive' yet now some are saying that we should. If people really want to broaden this to a discussion of sanitizing the user space (not just template space) of all disputed beliefs then they need to make a case for that... but until then there are no grounds to do so for bits and pieces of user space - whether they are enclosed in rectangles or not. There have been decisions against the use of the template namespace for disputed viewpoints... not the use of rectangles. --CBDunkerson 11:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one is saying that you cannot use rectangles; they are saying you cannot use templates. The definition of a template is not "stuff in Template:". See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Kotepho 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  See the quote from Jimbo that CharonX included above...he seems to disagree specifically with your argument. Jay Maynard 12:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree. You are apparently defining 'template' as 'anything which is transcluded'. That is not stated in the arbcom case you cite and is not consistent with Jimbo's statements about why T1 was created and what kinds of transclusion are acceptable:

  "Suppose we omit the bit about [disallowing] user subpages transcluded without substitution? If we do that, then a certain amount of userboxing can go on no problem, but outside the officially sanctioned spaces. This respects our long tradition of allowing wide latitude on userspace stuff, while at the same time keeping these userboxes out of officially sanctioned areas which would suggest to new users that this is an official thing that one ought to be doing. There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes, of course, but this is not different from the restriction on all manner of things people might put on their userpages already."

  The T1 criteria was created to address Jimbo's concerns (and those of others) about templates (by which I mean 'things in the template namespace') possibly giving the impression that a view was supported by Wikimedia. Above Jimbo makes a clear distinction that transcluded pages from the template and other 'official' namespaces need to be kept free of divisive statements, but transcluded user pages should be treated like any other user page content - where we have long allowed much wider lattitude since they do not reflect on Wikimedia. --CBDunkerson 12:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  What is not clear about "...or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner..." (Principle 2)? Is this not a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner? Deleted, check; userfied, check; used on pages other than those of it's owner, check.

  Also--amazingly enough--everything Jimbo says on a random talk page is not ex cathedra; there is a difference between Jimbo's opinion and Jimbo's decrees. Kotepho 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Lots of stuff Jimbo has said on random talk pages is being taken ex cathedra. If the statements that he's made that the anti-userbox faction likes count, so do the statements the anti-userbox faction doesn't like. Jay Maynard 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Are you saying that users are responsible for transclusions by others of their subpages? --SPUI (T - C) 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  When we reach the point that the T1 CSD is re-written to directly contradict the person who is directly responsible for its existence there is a problem. T1 was implemented spontaneously, without any normal approval process, to fill a need specified by Jimbo. Re-interpreting T1 to directly contradict Jimbo's position on this issue would invalidate it's entire basis for existence. As to the ArbCom principle you cite (I was looking for a definition of 'template' consistent with yours)... it deals with attempts to circumvent deletion of unacceptable content by relocating it. It does not address the different standards between what is acceptable in the template namespace and what is acceptable in the user namespace. If something was deleted because it is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia then moving it to the user space is no improvement, but if something was deleted because it was unacceptable in the template namespace (the meaning of T1 actually espoused by the person responsible for its existence), but would be acceptable in the user space, then I don't see a problem with its recreation. Just as the 'non notable bio' CSD applies to 'article' space, but not to 'user' space so to with the T1 CSD in template vs user space. The entire basis of T1's existence, possible implication of Wikimedia support, simply does not apply to the user space. --CBDunkerson 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I swear, when you think you've found a solution to a problem, another problem crops up. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what solution are you referring to? Most other editors here are citing WP:GUS. --StuffOfInterest 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and do not list at xfD. The German userbox solution is a compromise designed to end the userbox wars. Speedy deleting userboxes in userspace shows contempt for that compromise, and spits in the face of those who worked hard to make it reality. If the same criteria apply to userboxes in userspace as apply to userboxes in template space, then there is no compromise at all, and the wars, and the exodus, will go on. Jay Maynard 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is disappointing that we may lose a few good editors, but by and large people who would leave wikipedia over this are people who have the wrong idea about Wikipedia and see their userpage as another livejournal. --Improv 13:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please trim that broad brush. You have no way of knowing that, and the accusation, while not as insulting as saying those who believe userboxes are valuable want to turn Wilipedia into MySpace, is nevertheless quite wide of the mark. The reason people would leave Wikipedia over this is not only the inability to say who one is, but also - and perhaps even more so - that speedy deletions in the face of an ongoing attempt to reach a genuine compromise say that those in power simply do not care what those not in power think. That attitude is far more corrosive than any userbox can be, and, from what I'm seeing, far more pervasive. Jay Maynard 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You hit the nail on the head. When legitimate attempts at compromise are responded to with hard-line stonewalling, you know something is fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia's culture. jgp 13:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The difficulty is that compromise is not possible (or even desirable) in every case. For example, vandals want unlimited vandaism, wikipedia wants none, so it would be pointless to compromise and allow some vandalism. The base issue in this is that some see these boxes as an example of what wikipedia is not, and as such not a valid case for compromise, as what wikipedia is, and is not, is fundamental, not only to its culture, but to wikipedia itself. MartinRe 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Now you're just implying that userboxes are vandalism which is grossly off base and quite insulting. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
            • No, I am implying no such thing. I am simply pointing out that "compromise" is not always a magic word. If you have people that believe (rightly or wrongly) that the opposing view has no merit, then the middle ground will seem equally flawed. If one person thinks 2+2=4 and another says that 2+2=6, a suggested compromise to agree that 2+2=5 would also be rejected, but might be seen as stonewalling. And no, I am not saying any opinion is as right as "2+2=4", but am just pointing out possible reasons why what appears to be a compromise to one person, may appear not to be one to someone else. (and I have seen signs of this on all sides of this debate) Regards, MartinRe 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, as it has always been standard to make and transclude user subpages. --SPUI (T - C) 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no basis for deletion per the German Solution. Also they are most definitely not T1. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy them to my userpage UBX directory (UBX), which is open to all (non-personal attack/reality-compatible) userboxes. If anyone deletes it there, I will undelete it. Simple. TGS will be implemented, by community consensus. Xoloz 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, I got this idea from User:Cyde Weys, no friend of userboxes, and he is helping me implement it, so I'd say it has some sort of "bipartisan support". Xoloz 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, Xoloz, look closely. These were already in user space. Also, if you just undelete them you'll end up being accused of wheel warring. --StuffOfInterest 19:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I know exactly what I said SOI (although I take no offense at your point :) The difference between Winhunter and me is that I can undelete myself, without process hoops. Anyone who wheel-warred with me over my own userspace would go to ArbCom with me, and not be looked on too brightly. If I must wheel-war and lose adminship... oh well. If it ends the userbox war, it is worth it. I trust, however, that my fellow admins would respect my userspace, even if they delete from other "normal users" (sic). If they don't, we'll get this settled. Xoloz 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I hate to say this, but regardless of how it gets there I'm starting to think that ArbCom is the right place to go. I had hoped that when WP:GUS came around, backed by Jimbo's own words, things would finally settle. It appears that this isn't the case and higher level policy may be needed. --StuffOfInterest 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to see fewer user boxes, and I don't care where they are stored. The German system doesn't answer the fundamental question: What is Wikipedia?

Some user boxes are clearly deleted under T1 when they are not inflammatory. The emotional attachment which people show to a particular userbox when it is deleted can indicate whether it is inflammatory, and some raise no hackles. I wouldn't personally delete marginal userboxes until a new policy gains consensus. And people wheel warring over this issue just demonstrates they are too involved to have a dispassionate opinion. What we need in the short term is a simple and non-time consuming way to determine which boxes should be kept and which deleted while policy is worked out.

I suggest a panel of five people representing differing shades of opinion, with a process that means some are deleted and some are kept. Then everyone else can get on with more productive things. It's silly to have so many people involved when at the end of the day, they'll either all be deleted or all be recreated. Stephen B Streater 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Does a userbox having people with emotional attachment automatically make them inflammatory? What about the organ donor one? That had lots of emotional attachment, but it is almost completely inconceivable that it is inflammatory. (I just renewed my driver's license today, and made sure to check the box for organ donation, in part because this issue reminded me of it.)

It makes no sense to do anything with userboxes until policy is worked out. All deleting some does is inflame the situation and make it look like those doing the deleting are trying to get their licks in before they're told not to. That's the fundamental argument here: an admin took it upon himself to act while policy is still in flux, and the consensus appears to be that that is objectionable. Your panel would be even more so. Jay Maynard 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A panel might not be a bad idea, but I'd be shocked if anything becomes a policy on userboxes without just being done for a while first. I'd suggest that whomever forms such a panel look for 1) regular participation (no use having someone who drops out for months at a time), 2) demonstrated ability to be educational in discussing the topic, and for at least most of the panel members 3) demonstrated nuanced decisionmaking - no use having a panel of people whose opinions are predictable before they even see the userbox, as that would defeat the reason for forming a panel. I don't think this could become policy, but if a few people formed a panel that would chime in when requested, and that panel met Stephen B Streater's and my criteria, it could help and could even be a good enhancement to WP:GUS. I'm going to boldly take the suggestion, Jay's and my comments over to the talk page for that. So please follow up on this idea at it's talk page. GRBerry 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Policy Consulting

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Policy Consulting

The article about Strategic Policy Consulting was recently deleted and protected against re-creation, along with its associated redirects. This article is referred to in the frequently vandalised article about Alireza Jafarzadeh. Strategic Policy Consulting is relevant to a current event, the Iran and weapons of mass destruction issue. The company, through its links with the Mujahedeen-e_Khalq, is the primary US source of intelligence about Iran at present. The advice it provides may lead to US military action against Iran, thereby changing the course of history in the near future. A Wikipedia article about this company may be referred to by key decision makers throughout the world as they weigh the value of the advice it provides. With this in mind I would like to suggest the article be re-created so that it can be expanded and linked appropriately. --Dave 08:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the value of the article, I have to say that "A Wikipedia article about this company may be referred to by key decision makers throughout the world as they weigh the value of the advice it provides" is the scariest thing I'm likely to read today. Are you serious? · rodii · 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment was the article deleted by speedy or via AfD? And yes, the idea of the government consulting wikipedia is very frightening. --tjstrf 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Policy Consulting. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Dave probably means that key decision markers will be consulting the subject of the article, not the article itself. If it is the "primary US source of intelligence about Iran", that sounds like a claim of notability not considered by the original AfD that would be worth a re-examination. Is there a third-party source to support this claim? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not how I read it. Not that it's a big deal, but I read it as saying "key decisions maker will turn to the Wikipedia article for background on this company when they decide how much weight to give the company's intelligence." And that seems wrong to me. At the very least, we should be careful not to give credence to any claims about the company unless they meet a pretty high standard of verification. But I think that takes us out of deletion review territory. I agree with what you say about re-examining the evidence. · rodii · 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect/undelete. The article was deleted as an advertisement, but only 4 users even commented on the deletion. A rewritten form should be acceptable and it has a seemingly good claim to notability based on its owner. --tjstrf 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, but don't object to a rewrite if notability can be established. Just because only four people commented does not make this an invalid deletion. Discuss process. Please note that Googling '"Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc." -wikipedia' only brings up 55 hits, and the first five of those are various websites created by the company. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: I was the person who originally put this article up for AfD, way back just over a year ago. At the time, the article contained nothing to establish notability. One of the phrases from the article prior to that deletion: "there is a new power house in foreign policy namely Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc." The article read like spam, and I feel was deleted appropriately. The four versions that have been speedy deleted since the AfD deletion have contained less content than the first entry, with the content being less spam like but containing nothing to assert notability. That Alireza Jafarzadeh is the company's president is not in my opinion sufficient to make the company itself notable, as what minimal content has been included in the five deleted versions of the article could very easily be merged into the Alireza Jafarzadeh article. There is a claim above that this company is the primary source of intelligence on Iran for the United States. If that is true, then that is certainly enough claim to notability for an article. However, the claim at this point is uncited. I invite the person who made this deletion review request to create a proposed article at Strategic Policy Consulting/Temp, complete with citations and references substantiating this group's notability. This will give us an opportunity to fairly evaluate if there really is a claim to notability here or if the content should be included in the Alireza Jafarzadeh article, with perhaps a redirect from the subject article. --Durin 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletions as recreated content. Allow a rewrite in the Temp space citing independent third-party sources and demonstrating how this company meets the criteria of WP:CORP. I note that this page was rewritten during the AFD discussion by user:12.38.30.1, an IP address whose registration traces back to the same street address as this company. It was reposted word-for-word by that same IP and by two other IPs, leading me to believe that this is a single insider posting about his/her company. If you think you or your company might be important enough for an article, it's always a good idea to wait and let someone else write it. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: In reviewing the contribution history of the anon IP user, every edit made to other articles has apparently either been deleted or reverted as vandalism. That does seem to make it harder to assume good faith in this particular case. Rossami (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted stub article which made absolutely no claim to encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

This article was previously nominated for deletion with a decision of non-consensus. I question that the article meets neutrality and verifiability conditions for wiki articles. The original article was submitted by a member of the chat site as a vanity piece. The author, Avi, goes by the same name here and on the chat site. He is listed on the web chat site as a site supporter, which he describes as people who contributed funds to sustain the site. Also, most of the article is not verifiable as to who visits, size or influence.Deletionary 03:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• User's 5 edits are all to a AfD or DRV. Kimchi.sg 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have reason to think that the judgement of non consensus is incorrect, and that really there WAS a consensus to delete but the admin missed it, the best thing to do is to wait an appropriate time, and relist the article. DRV is not for revisiting the deletion discussion itself (which it often is helpful to give a link to, though, by the way) but rather for discussing whether there's some reason that it needs to be overturned. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

11 June 2006

The Esplanade Mall

Sheesh - I had to hunt through my browser history to find this. It was deleted recently on VFD. I found it soon after in CAT:CSD tagged at a repost. When I found it, it already was not "just a lengthy list of stores that exist at a mall" as the originally-deleted article was. I cleaned it up and completely rewrote it; the article included information about it being closed due to Hurricane Katrina. And yet it was still deleted as a repost. --SPUI (T - C) 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I was the admin who last deleted this article (it had been deleted as a repost once before). Although the content had been slightly rewritten it was fundamentally the same article. I believe that there may have been some confusion here, because the original article also contained a list of stores (but not only a list of stores - as a comment on the AfD indicated). Please let me know if you want me to retrieve the actual contents. Cheers TigerShark 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  I remember rewriting it - the grammar was horrible. Also, one of the "votes" reads:

  Even the cleaned-up version (of Clearview Mall) is simply a list of stores. If the article were to contain additional information, such as history of the mall, significant stores that have come and gone, significant events held at the mall, etc. I'd say keep.

  Given that the article as rewritten included some history, either Rehcsif didn't bother to read the article, or the article as rewritten was not the one on VFD. --SPUI (T - C) 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. The article as it stood at the time when the AfD was closed and the article deleted was substantially similar to the most recent version, the main difference being that the most recent version was better written and some cruft had been jettisoned (which did not affect the rationale for deletion - non-notability). A mention of the mall being affected by Hurricane Katrina was inserted into the article only an hour after the AfD began, and didn't sway any editors. And is that really the most interesting thing to say about this shopping centre? Certainly Hurricane Katrina damaged loads of places and doesn't confer notability by association. Unless there's something verified about it that hasn't been brought up yet worth putting in an encyclopaedia, keep deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If "votes" that concur with deletion of the present article due to its problems are to be taken as "votes" against any future article on the topic, I will be sure to "vote" to keep any article about a shopping mall, no matter how shitty the writing is. On the one hand, people say to "vote" on how the current article is, not on what it could be, but then (presumably) others delete any new article as a re-creation. --SPUI (T - C) 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. For any mall, it is worth describing its role as a transit hub, if this is the case. TruthbringerToronto 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD per TruthbringerToronto. (I tagged the latest recreation of the article, which SPUI removed.) Let's see if SPUI (and others?) can expand the article enough. Kimchi.sg 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Relist might as well see the contents and judge based on those, it sounds like it might be an expandable subject. --tjstrf 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We already did that, and so far no new content has been presented to judge since the AfD closed 3 days ago. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It was listed alongside Clearview Mall, and both received an overwhelming proportion of delete votes, including comments like "malls are not inheirantly notable" and "malls are generally not notable." and "I appreciate the idea and effort, but articles on the malls of towns falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to use one of my rare free moments to make a quick comment about this article. I originally listed the article for AfD when it was a list of malls, I would still place in AfD after seeing the recreated article. This mall wasn't the only thing that was hit by Hurricane Katrina, many more things were devasted by it. For instance, homes, roads, a large stadium, people's lives. By placing an article on a mall and stating that it's notable because it closed due to a large Hurricane, is making a mockery of people's lives and of the purpose of Wikipedia. Nothing notable happened in this mall to make it noteworthy, and the closing of a mall due to a hurricane (which is what the mall is SUPOSED to do, so that makes it norm), is not anywhere near the quality that Wikipedia needs to maintain. Yanksox 11:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. I reviewed a number of the deleted versions of this article both before and after the deletion decision. I do not consider them sufficiently different to have addressed the core concerns raised during the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete as an improper speedy deletion. Silensor 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Ling

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

• Shame about Mailer leaving; it does mean we can't ask him to explain himself. This seems a borderline case; I'd suggest overturning the close and relisting. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse closure. I think you are confusing the way these deletion debates are handled. Consensus is a higher standard than a mere supermajority. It means that we pay as much or more attention to the weight of arguments as we do to the weight of numbers. Reviewing the discussion, I make a vote-count of 16 "delete" to 7 "keep" (with one probable troll discounted). Had there been strong evidence, that could have been sufficient to interpret as the necessary "rough consensus" for deletion. In this case, however, the arguments focused on whether the person is notable enough to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies and neither side of this debate presented strong evidence either way. Furthermore, many of the participants explicitly qualified their opinions as "weak" (5 of the "keeps" were phrased as "weak keep" and 2 of the "deletes" were "weak delete"). Closing this discussion as "no consensus" seems to me to be well within the reasonable discretion of a closing admin.
  Note: a "no consensus" decision defaults to keep for now but does not prevent anyone from gathering stronger evidence and renominating it for deletion after a reasonable delay. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How, exactly, does one gain stronger evidence of non-notability? You cannot prove a negative, right? I understand that it is not merely a matter of votes, but I offered up what I could, and no one else had much to say. This may be because there wasn't much left to say - those for keeping didn't speak up to justify their votes, while those who voted to delete explained their specific rationale (re notability). Were they expected to expound on it for a full paragraph each? Clearly they felt the matter was a simple one and didn't feel the need to orate on it. While I respect that this isn't necessary what is sought after in an AfD, please let me know what else could have been done, if something wasn't handled well. Girolamo Savonarola 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To gain stronger evidence of non notability, search in more and different, yet still appropriate, places and present the negative results. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, Lar, surely the onus is on those claiming notability to prove that is the case, and not the other way round as it's based on WP:V, verifying that he's notable. (also see comment below) Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I was just directly answering the question asked. However, on a RE list, I think the lister has some responsibility to present new information, sufficient to justify why the previous result was unsatisfactory, or to show that things have changed in some way . That said, I agree with what you say below (and endorse the closure), because "the passage of time with no new notability proof" is a kind of "change in some way". ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure the afd focused on whether the subject was notable enough, and the opinion seemed to be borderline, verging on no, so "no consensus" seems a fair enough call on the afd. (if in doubt, don't delete, but not enough case for full keep) However, the notability claims need to be strengthened to remove that doubt, if this is not done, then it could be brought to afd again after a reasonable time, and if the arguements are similar, it will probably swing to delete, with the additional factor of no claims being found since the last afd weighing against the notability claim. Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Mailer diablo does not need to explain himself, the no consensus to delete is quite clear. Silensor 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Siberian language

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

• Comment Original deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian language. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - The current contents are indeed vastly different than the old, and it does seem perhaps a bit odd to delete as a recreate of a validly deleted article. That being said, the new content was incredibly poor, with bad spelling, links to livejournal, and many of the other markers of a poor article. I also wonder whether it's appropriate to call this a language -- by the article it sounds more like a description of a dialect (perhaps like calling a Boston accent a Boston language?). In sum, I don't know if there's any content worth keeping, and the title's probably misleading too. I'm open to lines of reasoning by other people on this one. --Improv 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The matter is just to construct a full language on the base of dialect --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you saying this is a project to build a language out of a dialect? Are you involved? How big is this? --Improv 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. Yes. 2. We have group of 81 persons who work at it - http://community.livejournal.com/learn_siberian/profile, but I am the leader of this group. 3. It has 15000 words in dictionary now http://volgota.com/govor/language/lj.doc.zip? online dictionary provided by ukrainian research group (NOT me, I can not program) http://totem.in.ua/sib/trans.php, it has rather wide literature of abouat 100 texts http://volgota.com/govor/, it has news service http://volgota.com/news/, so surely it is not OR --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Endorse Deletion - No disrespect is intended for you or your project, but this is too small and too new a project to be covered on Wikipedia, and this smacks of using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Maybe in a few years, this might be appropriate for an article, but as for right now, the article is too close to original research (I doubt there are independent studies of the language) and promo. --Improv 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Utter nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as the "Siberian language". --Timothy Usher 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • just see it at http://volgota.com - newspaper, books, site interface. Wiki has many articles about languages not so developed as Siberian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The language was developed from the time of last deletion, now it is very complicated, many texts translated and written, many people learning it, a big site launched, so it is not "non-notable" conlang now --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I absolutely agree with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. By the way, the site about siberian language and test wiki on siberian --Steel archer 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Both of these accounts were created to vote on Deletion Review. Not cool. --Improv 16:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You can see my history in UK and Yaroslav's (Anarch) history in RU Wikipedias. Why new users can't vote? --Steel archer 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. --Pjacobi 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, looking at the article, the VfD was as valid today as it was last year. --fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, elucidate your thought. --Steel archer 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable constructed language. There are no independent, neutral sources to confirm the existance of a specific "Siberian language" as described in the article. There are several languages spoken in Siberia, but this article does not adress any of them. --Ezeu 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The test wiki is not an independent reliable source. Much of it is written by some people participating here. --Ezeu 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Siberian language was prohibited in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. And now, most of people which are against this language are russian imperialists indeed. And this is a reason why it is rather difficult to find sources about siberian. There are no full literature siberian language: Yaroslav Zolotaryov just constructs it basing on many siberian dialects. So, you can hardly ever find people speak on ""literature"" siberian - only on its dialects. --Steel archer 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist to AfD: from my reading in linguistics I would expect it to be deleted there, but it would give non-admins the chance to debate the deletion on the merits of its content, especially as it doesn't seem to meet the recreated content CSD. --Aquilina 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - This page needs to be undeleted. The language has already been constructed. It is based on a local dialect, but its' origins are really beside the point. There is, for example, a wiki page for Talossan language, that has been constructed by a single person for a country completely invented by him, and whose "words and grammar are just made up at random". Surely Siberian has far better basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.29.135 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• The speedy-deleted version was significantly different from the deleted version. On that basis, I'm afraid that we must overturn the speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. However, I am deeply skeptical that the article will prevail during the deletion discussion. The prior deletion discussion was unanimous and included the opinion of the alleged author of this recently constructed language. None of the concerns raised in the prior deletion debate have been answered either in the redeleted article nor in this discussion so far. The wiki does not meet the required standards for a reliable source and the google test (168 unique hits) returns very little that appears relevant. Every hit I scanned used the phrase "Siberian language" in the casual sense of "a language used by a community indiginous to the geographic area of Siberia", not in the sense of a unified language. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can try the google test in russian language, and will see many sources about the siberian not from me or Volgota group. Being an artefact of local culture, it is simply not mentioned in the english-speaking audience --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Without sources that are functionally verifiable by the english-speaking participants of the English Wikipedia, that won't help much. Perhaps this would be more appropriate if transwiki'd to the Russian Wikipedia]? Rossami (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Better to the ukrainian article in http://ukr.wikipedia.org/wiki, because we believe it is more ibjective. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak overturn and relist per Aquilina. The version debated on VfD was a short stub, while the version deleted as G4 was fairly detailed. That said, I'd say the new version fails WP:OR pretty hard, and should be deleted or heavily shortened on that basis unless independent sources are provided. It's almost a WP:SNOW case, but I'm personally willing to give it its five days on AfD, just in case I'm proven wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Some independent sources http://dpni.org/forum/post48701.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Do you have any sources in English? The sources above may well substantiate the claims in the article for all I know, but I can't really tell since my grasp of Russian is almost nonexistent. Failing that, you might try to find a neutral established Wikipedian who understands Russian to review the sources — any volunteers? (In any case, this discussion belongs on AfD, should the article get relisted there, not here on DRV. If you wish to reply in length, please do so on my talk page or wait for the AfD listing.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist as different, where I will vote delete as this asserts the factual existence of this language, but no reliable sources have been produced to suggest that it is anything other than a conlang. Just zis Guy you know? 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Mikka, who speaks several comparable languages and is (unlike the average AfD voter) able to understand the supposed sources. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. original research. No independent information from anywhere but fans' writings provided. (forums are not allowed as sources for wikipedia) `'mikka (t) 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: this is nót about the question whether it is a good article or not. If there's something wrong with an article, it should be improved. Perhaps the English wasn't perfect indeed, and perhaps there was a link to a blog or something, but I think this article was still a lot better than the average stub. That kind of things can be fixed easily without deleting an article. Neither is this about the question whether constructed languages in general should be in Wikipedia or not. Nor about the question whether this article was original research. This is about the way it was deleted! Every time when a conlang is listed for deletion, they say: at present this language is not notable enough, but when that has changed, by all means create an article about it. Now, I think there are reasons to assume that that is indeed the case here. I can see many reasons why the language is notable enough. But even if I'm wrong, the merits of Siberian should be discussed properly in an AfD discussion, but definitely not here. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Surely, the article can be changed, my english is poor, and my view to the language is definitely non-neutral, so if would be better article, it would be fine --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:NOR. It's just another LiveJournal flashmob. MaxSem 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's exactly the point. That might have been true one year ago, it definitely isn't true anymore. But again, let's not start discussing the article itself, but the way it has been deleted. At present, no one can even read what the discussion is about. I think the least it deserves is a proper AfD discussion, pending which every participant in the discussion can read the article. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've temporarily undeleted the history for the duration of this DRV discussion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme speedy keep deleted. OR, an attempt at advertising an nn conlang, nothing has changed to make this more notable than the first decision to delete. We're not here to reargue the AfD, but to discuss whether or not the original deletion was appropriate. It was, it still is. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but this is not about the question whether the original deletion was appropriate. It no doubt was. If little Pete writes an article about his hobbies, then it will be deleted. But if he's suddenly elected president of the USA, does that mean there can't be an article about him because there has already been a valid VfD? What bothers me is this: once an article has survived an AfD, it can be relisted for deletion again, and again, and again, until the deletionists get their way. But once an article has been deleted, there is no way go get it back, even if things may have changed. I think that's bad, very bad! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: out of curiosity I looked into the website of the "language". After reading the "translation" of Pushkin quoted below I am more inclined to believe this is a practical joke rather than a serious attempt to revive a supposedly extinct "Siberian" dialect of Russian. Native Russian speakers, prepare for a good laugh:

  Мой дедя шыбко чесных веров,

  Кода-от шыбко захворал,

  Людям дык всю дыхню зашкерил,

  В горбыль всех просто зайобал.

  And there is more of this.`'mikka (t) 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • But such were dialetical expressions of the same meaning which is in Pushkin verse, and you laugh simply for diregarding the folk speech --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, Eugene Onegin in hillbilly... ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Tread carefully the fine line between humour and mockery. --Ezeu 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • No mockery of Pushkin there, Pushkin himself liked dialects, used them, if he were alive now, he perhaps voted for siberian here. His poem "Ruslan and Ludmila" was also regarded as mockery just for using dialectical words and common people's relation to the topic of this poem. So in fact, our group continues Pushkin's work, but conservators are against him --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. Just like "bad spelling", "links to livejournal", "too small and too new a project", "no such thing as the Siberian language", "no reliable sources", "promotion" and "original research" are irrelevant here. Again, this discussion should not be about the language itself. We have AfD discussions for that. This discussion is about the question whether an article that has been deleted in the remote past can or cannot be recreated. The admin in question has unilaterally deleted the article and locked the page, and thát is the decision I'm questioning here. People's personal tastes have no place in such discussion. For the record, I don't have a clear opinion on the matter. I'm in no way connected to the creators of the language. What I can tell as one of Wikipedia's self-proclaimed resident conlang experts, is that a lot seems to have changed since the last AfD. If the language has indeed a group of 80 active users, and if there is some press coverage, then it just might qualify for an article. Besides, we have this discussion about a wikipedia in the language going on. Personally, I don't believe this is a hoax. But like I said, that kind of arguments belong in an AfD discussion, not here. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This was not an argument. This was a comment that started this thread. This zolotarev guy extended his hobby joke as to suggest a siberian language wikipedia. How do you imagine wikipedia in hillbilly. This alone says something about this project. As for 80 active users: how do you know that? Somehow I don't believe Zolotaryov. The basic argument against undeletion is wikipedia:Verifiability. The "some" press coverage seen is not a reliable source, it is still word of language creator's mouth, not of an independent linguistics expert. In other words, the major objection voiced during deletion is not addressed by the new version. Article size doesn't matter. `'mikka (t) 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • A hundred years ago Ukrainian was also considered "hillbilly Russian" by the czarist government. In other words, thát argument doesn't really hold stake. As for your point regarding verifiability: I tend to agree with you here. I'd love to see some samples of real press coverage, because thát is IMO what makes the difference. I don't know whether to believe Mr. Zolotaryov or not. The whole discussion evokes quite strong reminiscences of High Icelandic. If you haven't seen it, I'd say it's worth to take a look at the AfD discussion there. My whole point is only that I think the subject deserves proper discussion, and this is not the place for it. In a normal AfD discussion I certainly wouldn't have voted "keep" without convincing arguments. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 22:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • But it should be defined, what argument are relevant in the english wiki. If it will be defined with certainity, I shall find them. "There is no such language at all" surely is not an argument. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted this nonsense, please. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. AfD had six deletes, no keeps. No suggestion of any voting irregularities or debatable sysop judgement. I note too that the article has no real references; the fact that one of the external links is described as "Volgota, the main promo site" strongly suggests that the purpose of the article is not to synthesize published factual material into an encyclopedia article, but to promote a project. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite so. Nobody is arguing that the AfD was invalid. But for heaven's sake, that was over a year ago! A lot can change in the meantime. If Yaroslav can somehow substantiate his claims about the number of speakers, and provide some verifiable info regarding press coverage, then I can't see why the article wouldn't deserve a second chance. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • In what way can I substantiate it? What info about the press is verifiable? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to believe that this Yaroslav fellow (among others) has any existence beyond that of a sockpuppet created to vote in this deletion review..Timothy Usher 05:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • But I do! User's first contribution was dated 10 June, 18:49 (UTC). This deletion review was dated 11 June, 9:32 (UTC). So tell me: how can this account have been created with the sole purpose of voting here, if there wasn't any vote yet? I think it's always better to assume good faith! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 07:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nn and ue. Also, there seems to be a campaign to start a separate Wikipedia in this language. What's next Klingon and Elvish Wikipedias? --Irpen 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There used to be a wikipedia in Klingon, but it has been closed down. An Elvish wikipedia has been proposed, but I don't think there's enough support for it. BTW, I'm not thát frequent a guest here; what does "ue" mean? —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Those must have been shut down for a reason. ue=unencyclopedic, nn=non-notable. --Irpen 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nonsense. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

10 June 2006

Template:Major_programming_languages

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

• Note: Original TFD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_25#Template:Major_programming_languages — xaosflux ^Talk 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I would have closed this TfD the same way IceKarma did. Unless Lulu's opinion would have brought with it a fantastic new argument, I doubt including his "vote" amongst the others would have tipped the balance, either. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  No,I wouldn't have had any fantastic argument that was much different from other voters. I just think that a supermajority (i.e. 75-80%, or at the least 66%) should be required for deletion, rather than just a majority (absent evidence of sockpuppetry, or clearly more experienced editors on one side of a vote, or other special circumstance... none of which existed here). 11/7 is pretty much the same thing as 11/6 in this regard. LotLE×talk 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well, *fD's being not a vote is more than just discounting inexperience or sockpuppetry. It also means that an overwhelming majority is not required for consensus to exist. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm generally in favor of keeping articles over deleting them (as long as they're maintainable and verifiable), but it seems clear from the discussion that maintaining the template was plain infeasible, by consensus. I also note that there was no prejudice against creating a new, more maintainable template. Powers 18:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  When did I mention the tally? When closing AfDs, MfDs, RfDs, and the occasional (during the long dark teatime of the soul) TfD, I make a point of never counting the number of "votes". Knowledge of the raw numbers will shed no light on the appropriate course of action, and is thus unnecessary and occasionally even obfuscatory. Bugger the tally. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lulu: Tfd is not a vote! Don't count comments like it was one. --Cyde↔Weys 03:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik Möller

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

• there are also two previous versions of Erik Möller that have been deleted previously, the first was a redirect and the second was very short. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• There are about 4,000 copies of my book. It's a niche publication about wikis, weblogs and open source software. I don't think having written a single book with such a small run makes me a notable person.--Eloquence* 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, hasn't sold over 5,000 copies of his book, also doesn't meet "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" of WP:BIO. --Rory096 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To be accurate, there have been numerous reviews in newspapers, magazines and radio; I get a regular sample of those from my publisher. But again, the print run is fairly small, and a bit of media attention is to be expected given the topics covered.--Eloquence* 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Do we really need a Wikipedia article for every Wikipedian, even the more famous ones? What's next, an article for me? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Margana found it nessecary to prove her point by creating that article in violation of WP:POINT. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The subject of the page nominated the page for deletion with the reason "Non-notable, wikicruft." The editor in question is a very experienced and highly respected editor with a deep understanding of our policies, standards and traditions. If even he argues to delete the page, we should trust his judgment. Incidentally, my own reading of our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies confirms that decision. One niche publication is not generally considered sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if Erik Möller says he's not notable, I believe him. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Only claim to significance outside of Wikipedia is being a published author... of a book with ~4,000 printed copies. The deletion of this article is perfectly valid.--SB | T 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Just zis Guy. AnnH ♫ 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
  • user's third edit to Wikipedia
  • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• 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" [5] - 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. [6]
  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 [7] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [8]
  5. MSN [9] and Yahoo [10] 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: [11]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Thanks, Kimchi. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Kimchi. Normally, deletion review is not a re-vote on the merits of the arguments advanced in AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 12 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)

• Note from User:Netscott: Despite what the nominator has said, the actual reasoning for speedy deletion of this policy proposal was general criteria for speedy deletion #5, "Pages created by banned users while they were banned.". This policy proposal was created by the banned editor Resid Gulerdem. While User:Raphael1 did make some perfunctory changes to the WP:OURS proposal that Resid Gulerdem created, his putting it online was sooner a proxy act for Gulerdem. Due to these facts alone this deletion review appears prima facie unqualified to even continue and I would recommend to the first admin reading this to close it accordingly. Netscott 13:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? You have chosen to leave a rude, snotty message on my talk page as well. Sceptre made a mistake, that's all. I should not have gone to any particular length to point up this fact; it's enough to correct it. We all make mistakes but they can be fixed.

There is no speedy criterion for pages created by proxy; that is an invention. Further, I detest your use of legalese to insist that again process be circumvented. Please get off your high horse and let us express our community will. John Reid 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting if somewhat agressive/inappropriate response to my rather polite talk page message. User:Sceptre made no mistake in speedy deleting this banned user's policy proposal creation. As submittor of this policy proposal for MfD I would have opted for speedy deletion (as it rightly was) had I properly thought through the proxy nature of it's creation on Wikipedia relative to speedy deletion general criteria #5. As it was I admit that I wasn't clear about that. Netscott 21:04, 12 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)
• Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Editor was openly working to post content for a banned user. Shell ^babelfish 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see any reason to continue the disruption this page was causing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, editing by proxy for a banned user by another user whose days on Wikipedia are numbered. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore the page especially because of John Reids objection #3. Raphael1 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nuked from orbit, banned users forming policy through proxies is a big no no and in fact a notable admin was just de-sysoped for similarly natured behavior. If this policy proposal is undeleted User:Raphael1 will likely continue to operate as Resid Gulerdem's proxy in trying to alter it and will continue to formulate it according to Gulerdem's instructions. Netscott 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and reopen MFD debate. G5 does not apply if somebody does what a banned user wanted to do, because the "proxy" has then taken responsibility for the edit. Apart from that, I agree with Rossami that this should probably kept, and probably marked as rejected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted [er Shell Kenney, Netscott, et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted.
  1. Posting to the mailing lists are, as far as I'm aware, copyrighted with all rights reserved. At the moment any recreation of this proposal will be a copyright violation of Rgulerdem's work.
  2. Even if Rgulerdem releases the content under GFDL, there's absolutely no way we're going to be able to create workable policy out of a banned user's musings. This will be WP:RGULERDEM for all time. If there is anything useful in there (and as far as I can see it's all instruction creeping bureaucratic claptrap) then I'm sure it'll come up somewhere else. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no copyright issue. See Rgulerdems recent mail. Furthermore I consider it an affront towards the Wikipedia community to state, that this proposal will always be Rgulerdems proposal. At least an admin should know, that nobody owns anything here. Raphael1 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Be affronted all you want to, unless Rgulderdem has specifically released this to the public domain, it's still a copyvio. "I approve the actions taken and have no problem with these actions." is not a copyright release. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course it is. Rgulerdem is a previous Wikipedia editor, therefore he is fully aware, that approving to post WP:OURS to Wikipedia means agreeing to GFDL. Raphael1 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

When one opens the edit dialog, there's msg saying

Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.

right besides the save button. So if he owns the copyright, he can't pull it away. If he doesn't, then he can't release under gfdl and must be deleted. That said Keep deleted since it's unnecessary. -- Drini 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he can "pull it away". Every copyright owner can anytime choose to license his work under GFDL. But after he has done so, he can't make it "his own" again. Raphael1 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All this talk about copyright is nonsense, another attempt at an end run around community consensus and due process. I want to see this awful proposal, not hear about it. John Reid 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence/OURS there you go, you can see it. Metros232 19:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy Pages created by a banned user are speediable. The method it's created by doesn't matter, be that by direct editing, a sockpuppet, a proxy editor or even telekinesis, it's still a creation of a banned user (whose name should have been credited in the edit summary for GFDL compliance (see WP:AFC step 2). Regards, MartinRe 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though I missed that chance of crediting him, I credited the original author here and here. Raphael1 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per NoSeptember and Zoe.Timothy Usher 21:11, 12 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 insert a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 26.5%, Merge - 4 votes 26.5%

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)
  • Read the material I have entered here -- AT LENGTH -- and in the remaining article talk page and my talk page. I have covered every accusation made against the article and shown that every accusation made was untrue. There is NO original research and the article was the result of a collective effort. How can all this overwhelming proof be ignored? How am I supposed to correct a situation that does not in reality exist? The article was put up for AfD under false pretenses. How can that be allowed to stand? -- Jason Palpatine 20:44, 11 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 arguments given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguments, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Over a 2-month period, I showed more than enough facts to demonstrate that the charges leveled for AfD were untrue. Despite this, the charges were upheld with the truth being totally ignored -- as just about everyone here is doing. I have laid out the truth in detail here. The facts are overwhelming -- but you and the other completely ignore it! -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 11 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on Jason Palpatine's answer, I have decided not to express an opinion about whether the admin's decision should or should not be overturned. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

According to User:Scm83x: ”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”

I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with

Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

in the main article.

If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article [as of 18:50, 18 April 2006] In other words, that original article material was produced by other editors here.

The following editors all contributed to the article in the month before I took a serious interest:

User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS

This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was

"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all."

The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

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

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:

13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)

11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)

Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

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

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

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

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

Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub-article] inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal WebPages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. -- Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but Wikipedia copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it.

My sources are list above.

When he made his decision, fuddlemark wrote:

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

?

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

OK. Lets go over it again:

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

Accusation -- Original Research.

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

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

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

Accusation -- Unencyclopedic tone.

• What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? There is nothing in the Wikipedia about it. The article is a recitation of a series of events. What about that could be considered “unencyclopedic?” This accusation is nonsense.

When my edits to the article came under ATTACK, I defended my position. I presented clear, concise arguments – whereupon I was accused of original research. I responded to this false accusation by citing my sources of information -- which were labeled "irrelevant"! That is called hypocrisy.

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) ^{speak your mind}

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

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

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

Is there no one who will give this request of mine a clear point for point response? -- Jason Palpatine 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. WP:NOT reader's digest. And please people, brief comments -- nobody wants to read these long essays. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How can I be brief when trying to present facts countering a series of untrue accusations? With al the facts i have presented, how can you ignore the truth? -- Jason Palpatine 10:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• For disclosure, note that I called for this article's deletion in the original debate. Based on my reading of Mr, Palpatine's comments above, I see no actual refutation of the arguments, but instead a fundamental misunderstanding of those original arguments. On the issue of sources, the author seems to have, rather than summarising the interprations of others, he's taken those as a basis for his own interpration of the film. He does not seem to understand the "no original research" and neutral point of view policies, nor the way consesus forming discussion works on Wikipedia. Personally, I thought his analysis was interesting and unique, and really, deserves to be published somewhere. However, that somewhere is simply not Wikipedia. This article was redundant and in violation of core policies, it should not be restored. I believe that Mr. Palpatine could be a valued contributor to Wikipedia, but he still has much to learn.--SB | T 02:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disclosure? Huh? Redundant and in violation of core policies? Sorry, but if that is the case, what was the point of the too big/split flag then? -- Jason Palpatine 06:34, 13 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)
• Endorse closure of the second deletion debate. I find no process problems in that discussion nor do I find any evidence of bias. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Image:WikiPâques.png

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

• 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)

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".

13 June 2006

IRCDig

This article was deleted due to notability claims that were false. IRCDig is just as notable, if not more notable than most torrent search engine articles wikipedia decides to keep. The deletion discussion was split amongst keep and delete votes. The article followed all criteria for a valid article and then some. This article was incorrectly afd'd and should be re-instated. The supporters of deletion argued that the author was the only one that had contributed to the article but what they failed to realize was that the article was only like a week old. LOL... I discovered it when it was in it's afd discussion and contributed a keep vote and would have contributed to the article if I would have had time to see it. KernelPanic 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• AfD here. Whether the website is truly notable or not, this is a textbook proper close. Endorse closure unless notability can be accurately verified. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And what is the official wikipedia process for verifying notability? You say it was a text book closure whether the site is notable or not then you say you endorse the closure until the notability can be accurately verified? Which one is it? If wikipedia is going to allow it's admins to delete articles due to notability then there needs to be a clear and concise process for verifying notability. Until this happens, it is completely open to personal interpretation, which is ALWAYS going to be a mistake due to personal biases. KernelPanic 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not "until," "unless." I'll gladly petition to overturn the closure if you can provide some sort of evidence that this is a notable thing. The "admins" didn't delete this, as much as a consensus by a not-insignificant number of fellow editors felt deletion was the correct path, and no claim was made by you or the other editor stating keep to make any sort of notability evident. I'm one of the most inclusive editors on here, and I'm not even convinced that this program is worth an article at this stage. Seriously, prove me wrong and I change my view. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Show us how it meets the standards of WP:WEB "the official wikipedia process for verifying notability" as you requested. This means independent news coverage and/or awards for the site. Lots of Google hits does not make something notable. My username gets 13,300 hits...am I notable? Metros232 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the same respect, using Alexa as a source of showing something as being not notable is not an accurate method either, which is what the afd argument was based on. There are numerous articles about ircdig and numerous other discussions on independant news groups, message boards, etc. You can use the very same google search you condemned to find these artcles. I agree that the amount of information that google has indexed on a particular thing does not make it notable, but I would say that over 3000 uniques a day from over 115 different countries does. Was this article really clutterinh up wikipedia so much, or offending other editors so much that it just had to be removed? wikipedia has become a joke. Now I know why so many people talk trash about it. It is full of a bunch of immature kids who like to try and use their so called "power" to dictate what articles say and what articles even exist. Keep it deleted if it makes you that happy. It is not even worth the argument anymore. The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end. Maybe you should delete your entire site according to your own regulations. The only press I see about wikipedia is negative press (Criticism of Wikipedia). Does that make it notable? KernelPanic 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Lately all the press that George W. Bush gets is negative, is he still notable? :) And to think, I'm a Republican and yet I make that kinda statement. None of the Google hits I see are news articles. This is the closest [12]. There's also one that's a press release from IRCDig. The first one is not a reliable source and press releases don't count for notability.

The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end.

Or could it be that no one's looking for the article because it's not notable? The amount of hits he gets on his site from our article matters so little to our consideration of whether or not to keep an article since we're not a source of advertisement for websites. Metros232 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Relisting to generate more discussion would have been a viable alternative, but the two keep commentators both are new enough contributors and had weak enough points that ignoring their presence is a reasonable decision on the part of the closing admin. Nothing in the AfD or the discussion above asserts that the article met WP:WEB, the topic specific notability guideline. The bit about "only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article" indicates that the article was viewed as an advertisement. Advertisements are a direct violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a section of one of the basic policies. As to the other torrent sites, if they are truly not worthy of being kept, their articles will go to eventually. No hurry, but consistency is not required, and taking our time has benefits. GRBerry 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Properly closed, did not assert notability. -M^ask 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. No evidence of notability, and the fact of an article not being advertising is not sufficient grounds to keep it when there is clearly not enough reliable external coverage to ensure neutrality. Just zis Guy you know? 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. Robertsteadman 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)

If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. Xoloz 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. Robertsteadman 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law as it applies today to items published today. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime. All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article. The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its copyright had already lapsed under the old law. It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Wikipedia is a violating the law. Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum. Prior to 1923, all published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law. Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer User:Brad Patrick. He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law. I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Wikipedia is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. Xoloz 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.

• Endorse closure. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not. I am compelled to wonder once again if User:Robertsteadman and User:Robsteadman are related. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Saryn Hooks

Article was AfD'd today, and deleted speedily per A7 after only three votes. Article certainly asserts notability, and frankly, I would have voted Keep.

Content was, more or less, "Saryn Hooks, of Taylorsville,North Carolina, placed third in the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee. She was reinstated after the judges realized they had the incorrect spelling of hechsher. She is fourteen years old and hopes to become a doctor."

Recommend undeletion and relisting at AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain for the moment. Coming third in a spelling bee is certainly not an impressive claim of notability. The judges got her word wrong? Woop de do, I don't think that'll be up there with the Mano de Dios in the Top 100 Shocking Sporting Moments on Channel 4. However, I'm not quite prepared to say that this should be snowballed, hence the abstention. It wouldn't have killed anyone to let this run its course. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Couldn't this detail simply be merged into the article for the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee as a bit of interesting trivia? --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's not very interesting? If it had affected the outcome of the game it would be important, but the girl went out anyway. Looking at the article, I don't see anywhere obvious to insert a mention, and it seems like a very inconsequential thing to start a new '==Trvia==' section with. But if you can do better than I, you don't have to wait for the article to be undeleted to edit the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically, any subject could be merged into another article as a short blurb rather than a real article, but that doesn't really do us justice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and complete AFD The reinstatement is also an assertion of notability. How often does a reinstatement occur? Without knowing this, which only an AFD discussion can address, we can't tell if there is notability. GRBerry 15:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why go to lengths - participation and high placement themselves are assertions of notability! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, reopen AFD A claim of notability necessitates an AFD. --Rob 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, certainly not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not fair for me to vote since I deleted it, but I just wanted to say that this met speedy deletion criteria in my view. I am not opposed to letting the AFD run its course if that is the outcome of this review.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per nom. BoojiBoy 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per nominator. Silensor 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Reviewing the articles on some of the winners of this competition, they would be far better combined a single article (and this one with them). Unless and until they achieve some lasting notability, an article which says that X attended foo school, won a spelling bee one year, and since then has not been mentioned in any reliable sources, would be a clear and unambiguous delete for any adult. I can't believe we're even considering keeping an article on someone whose sole claim to fame is that they came third. Come on, people! The reliable sources contain maybe two facts: the competition and the school. Just zis Guy you know? 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

12 June 2006

User:Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF and User:Winhunter/Userboxes/No-CCP

This user is opposed to online censorship.

This user opposes the Chinese Communist Party.

Both userboxes are in the userspace according to the German Userbox solution, but an admin deleted both of them, saying "T1 deletion as per CSD and Tony Sidaway arbcom case." in the deletion log. I do not believe speedy deletion would apply on userboxes in userspace in these two uesrboxes, especially when there are consensus on German Userbox Solution. --WinHunter^(talk) 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list at MfD - I think these userboxes must necessarily be deleted at MfD, but I think that, in this case, it's worth it to go back and list them there. Other opponents of userboxes, please consider my reasons. (I'm the same one who's argued passionately against not digging up the dead to rebury them.) We have a choice right now: we may start another userbox brouhaha, or not. Let's choose not to. Let's be smart about it this time, and do what Jimbo actually suggested. Once the boxes are in userspace, let's use reason and dialogue to explain why they're a bad idea. Let's do that by taking them to MfD for deletion instead of speedying them, and creating the conditions for much more congenial discussion, where explanation and development of reasons can actually go on in more cooperative spirit. Let's not ruffle feathers with speedy deletions, and then try to have that same conversation at DRV, where it's much more difficult on account of people being upset, and the constant drive to not talk about the content being deleted, but the validity of the deletion instead. This is a crappy place for the conversation to happen. We're not required to speedy polemical pages in user-space. We are free to apply the "if it walks like a template" criterion, or not. Please consider that we can do this encyclopedia a greater service by being a little more slow and deliberate about dealing with the userbox problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at MfD - I dislike these 2 boxes but am convinced by GTBacchus' points. Kimchi.sg 03:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, and send to MfD Case 1: EFF box. It is anything but obvious that this is inflammatory. It is anything but obvious that this is divisive. Heck, Wikipedia, by policy, is not censored. If there is anyplace that this should not be divisive, it is Wikipedia. This one looks like a clearly erroneous speedy deletion, and possibly should just be overturned without sending it to MfD, as I think a keep outcome is the appropriate MfD result. Case 2: Opposes CCP box. Better addressed on MfD than via a speedy deletion, as per GTBachus' argument above. The inflammatory case is debatable, given that the CCP already attempts to ban the citizens of mainland China from seeing Wikipedia, and that those who circumvent the firewall are unlikely to be the CCP's strongest supporters. GRBerry 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• I do not believe endless TFDs, MFDs, and DRVs are the correct way to resolve this issue. I think it's time to try the final step in dispute resolution. --Cyde↔Weys 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Which is...? If it's "take it to someone who can set binding policy", I agree with you. Jay Maynard 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• ArbCom is the final step of dispute resolution. --Cyde↔Weys 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted These fall under T1. T1 applies to userspace templates still. Would it be better to delete these through TFD or MFD? I believe so, but they have shown that they do not produce correct results w.r.t. to policy. Process is only important if it works. Kotepho 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not democracy. Why are MfDs closed against policy just because the numbers say so? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't know. Why are Gay Nigger Association of America and The Game (game) still around? Their sources are certainly scant.

  I do want to echo your request that userboxes in User: should be taken to *FD instead of speedied in most cases, but the debates need to be closed on their merits instead of numbers. That is not to say that all templates in user space should be taken to *FD--as many are fine in user space--but there are still templates that are so odious that they must be deleted from user space also. I believe that "user against $POLITICAL_PARTY" falls under such a condition, even if I happen to agree with that position. The EFF box is a bit different--enough that it probably should be discussed seperately. "This user supports the EFF" is something that I believe is inappropriate, but not so much that it needs to be deleted immediately. In its current form I believe that T1 is applicable. Kotepho 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  It is in userspace, what do you think about this? Jimbo on Userboxes --WinHunter ^(talk) 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else. - Jimbo Wales I like it a lot. I would add this bit though. I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.[13] On "it is in userspace": I have no idea what you are replying to, as no one disputes that. Kotepho 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I am reasonably certain that Winhunter was referring to this quote: [14] (too long to copy). It is, after all, the one he linked to. —Mira 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  This one [15] too, actually. —Mira 08:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes... from the first diff, and I already quoted from the second diff? The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results. Personally, I'm not a big fan of people using their user pages (or editing the encyclopedia) to advocate their points of view (and Jimbo agrees). How are these boxes anything other than that? Notice how Jimbo doesn't say "Oh I think that is fine", he says "this might work for now, but try and talk some sense into them". Talking hasn't worked; and most of these comment are from months ago. On the issue of substed versus transcluded in userspace, it is not a distinction without a difference. Kotepho 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I haven't seen talking given much of a chance to work. I've seen people try to bypass talking, by just deleting a bunch of boxes repeatedly, and creating conditions for people to feel they're being attacked. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at MFD agree with GTBacchus. The speedy deletion of userboxes has been far more divisive than any userbox could ever be. —Mira 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete Nothing wrong with either these userboxes or WP:GUS. jgp 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete User space is sacred territory!  Grue  07:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. First one is merely unnecessary, second is a childish attempt to piss off the editors you're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia with. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Question. How is the second one going to piss anyone off? Wikipedia is banned where anyone would actually support the Chinese communist party, because of the chinese communist party. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Userspace is not sacred, and must follow policy like anywhere else. --Improv 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Userspace is absolutely fine for userboxes. I don't use them, but I had asked Tony Sidaway about them at User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Random_Userbox_question. He seemed to think they were OK in the userspace, and I disagree that a T1 CSD criterion can apply to the userspace. Because if we can apply other CSD criterion to the user space, then we should delete a crapload of nn-bios and nonsense right now. - Hahnchen 08:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it looks like a duck, and transcludes like a duck, and quacks "Hey you! Your government and your political opinions are evil! By the way, would you like to write an encyclopaedia with me?" like a duck, it's probably a duck and therefore subject to criterion for speedy roasting T1. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are these boxes being treated differently to anything else on the user page? Are we no longer allowed to write down out beliefs on our userpage? If I write on my userpage "Evolution is fact", it's OK? But if I put it into a box, it's crossing some kind of line? If so, I seriously suggest we start at User:SPUI and work on from there. - Hahnchen 09:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I have no problems with people wrting down their beliefs on their userpage within reason, I do have a problem with encouraging others to write down the same beliefs by handing out bumper stickers. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  If you know of any recreated deleted articles being used in userspace as they would be in article space (i.e. inside article categories and/or linked from article space) please remove such links/cats, tag it g4, or bring it to mfd. Kotepho 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Naturally, categorisation or crosslinking from the mainspace to the userspace should not be allowed. I myself have made this error when working on new articles in my userspace. However, the relevance to this conversation seems very little. Many times I have seen 'Userfy' used in deletion discussions, so recreations in the userspace aren't entirely g4 material. - Hahnchen 09:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Of course it does not apply to all templates, but ones that are divisive and inflammatory are fair game even in user space. Examples of such happening would be User Anti-UN and User Anti-ACLU. How is No-CCP significantly different? Kotepho 10:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. POV userboxes but in userspace, which is what the German solution calls for. We have generally granted wide latitude in that area, including clear biases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The whole idea of WP:TGS is to take forward Jimbo's endorsement of how userboxes are handled on the German Wikipedia. He has said that POV should be allowed in user space far beyond what is allowed in template space. Also, I'm strongly against extending T1 to user space. Show me the policy discussion covering that interpretation, please. --StuffOfInterest 10:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If I may quote Jimbo's suggestion regarding the failed UPP proposal: "The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive." CharonX/talk 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The stated reason that a user-page comment to the effect of, 'I hate people with mauve skin' inside a rectangle has not been allowed while 'I hate people with mauve skin' outside a rectangle has been allowed was that the 'rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'Template space' and might therefor theoretically be taken to imply that Wikimedia encourages or tolerates the hating of people with mauve skin... while the 'not in a rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'User space' wherein it is more clearly the statement of the individual user(s). Ergo, if a disputed viewpoint resides entirely in user space it does not fall under the stated reason for removal of such from template space... whether it is enclosed in a rectangle or not. Does that make the hating of mauve people a good thing which we should encourage? Of course not, but to date we haven't taken the position that we can (or should) police the content of all userpages to remove any disputed viewpoints. If someone writes on their user page, 'I am gay and have been married to my partner for three years now' we do not remove it on the grounds that 'gay marriage is divisive' yet now some are saying that we should. If people really want to broaden this to a discussion of sanitizing the user space (not just template space) of all disputed beliefs then they need to make a case for that... but until then there are no grounds to do so for bits and pieces of user space - whether they are enclosed in rectangles or not. There have been decisions against the use of the template namespace for disputed viewpoints... not the use of rectangles. --CBDunkerson 11:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one is saying that you cannot use rectangles; they are saying you cannot use templates. The definition of a template is not "stuff in Template:". See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Kotepho 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  See the quote from Jimbo that CharonX included above...he seems to disagree specifically with your argument. Jay Maynard 12:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree. You are apparently defining 'template' as 'anything which is transcluded'. That is not stated in the arbcom case you cite and is not consistent with Jimbo's statements about why T1 was created and what kinds of transclusion are acceptable:

  "Suppose we omit the bit about [disallowing] user subpages transcluded without substitution? If we do that, then a certain amount of userboxing can go on no problem, but outside the officially sanctioned spaces. This respects our long tradition of allowing wide latitude on userspace stuff, while at the same time keeping these userboxes out of officially sanctioned areas which would suggest to new users that this is an official thing that one ought to be doing. There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes, of course, but this is not different from the restriction on all manner of things people might put on their userpages already."

  The T1 criteria was created to address Jimbo's concerns (and those of others) about templates (by which I mean 'things in the template namespace') possibly giving the impression that a view was supported by Wikimedia. Above Jimbo makes a clear distinction that transcluded pages from the template and other 'official' namespaces need to be kept free of divisive statements, but transcluded user pages should be treated like any other user page content - where we have long allowed much wider lattitude since they do not reflect on Wikimedia. --CBDunkerson 12:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  What is not clear about "...or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner..." (Principle 2)? Is this not a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner? Deleted, check; userfied, check; used on pages other than those of it's owner, check.

  Also--amazingly enough--everything Jimbo says on a random talk page is not ex cathedra; there is a difference between Jimbo's opinion and Jimbo's decrees. Kotepho 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Lots of stuff Jimbo has said on random talk pages is being taken ex cathedra. If the statements that he's made that the anti-userbox faction likes count, so do the statements the anti-userbox faction doesn't like. Jay Maynard 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Are you saying that users are responsible for transclusions by others of their subpages? --SPUI (T - C) 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  When we reach the point that the T1 CSD is re-written to directly contradict the person who is directly responsible for its existence there is a problem. T1 was implemented spontaneously, without any normal approval process, to fill a need specified by Jimbo. Re-interpreting T1 to directly contradict Jimbo's position on this issue would invalidate it's entire basis for existence. As to the ArbCom principle you cite (I was looking for a definition of 'template' consistent with yours)... it deals with attempts to circumvent deletion of unacceptable content by relocating it. It does not address the different standards between what is acceptable in the template namespace and what is acceptable in the user namespace. If something was deleted because it is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia then moving it to the user space is no improvement, but if something was deleted because it was unacceptable in the template namespace (the meaning of T1 actually espoused by the person responsible for its existence), but would be acceptable in the user space, then I don't see a problem with its recreation. Just as the 'non notable bio' CSD applies to 'article' space, but not to 'user' space so to with the T1 CSD in template vs user space. The entire basis of T1's existence, possible implication of Wikimedia support, simply does not apply to the user space. --CBDunkerson 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I swear, when you think you've found a solution to a problem, another problem crops up. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what solution are you referring to? Most other editors here are citing WP:GUS. --StuffOfInterest 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and do not list at xfD. The German userbox solution is a compromise designed to end the userbox wars. Speedy deleting userboxes in userspace shows contempt for that compromise, and spits in the face of those who worked hard to make it reality. If the same criteria apply to userboxes in userspace as apply to userboxes in template space, then there is no compromise at all, and the wars, and the exodus, will go on. Jay Maynard 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is disappointing that we may lose a few good editors, but by and large people who would leave wikipedia over this are people who have the wrong idea about Wikipedia and see their userpage as another livejournal. --Improv 13:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please trim that broad brush. You have no way of knowing that, and the accusation, while not as insulting as saying those who believe userboxes are valuable want to turn Wilipedia into MySpace, is nevertheless quite wide of the mark. The reason people would leave Wikipedia over this is not only the inability to say who one is, but also - and perhaps even more so - that speedy deletions in the face of an ongoing attempt to reach a genuine compromise say that those in power simply do not care what those not in power think. That attitude is far more corrosive than any userbox can be, and, from what I'm seeing, far more pervasive. Jay Maynard 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You hit the nail on the head. When legitimate attempts at compromise are responded to with hard-line stonewalling, you know something is fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia's culture. jgp 13:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The difficulty is that compromise is not possible (or even desirable) in every case. For example, vandals want unlimited vandaism, wikipedia wants none, so it would be pointless to compromise and allow some vandalism. The base issue in this is that some see these boxes as an example of what wikipedia is not, and as such not a valid case for compromise, as what wikipedia is, and is not, is fundamental, not only to its culture, but to wikipedia itself. MartinRe 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Now you're just implying that userboxes are vandalism which is grossly off base and quite insulting. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
            • No, I am implying no such thing. I am simply pointing out that "compromise" is not always a magic word. If you have people that believe (rightly or wrongly) that the opposing view has no merit, then the middle ground will seem equally flawed. If one person thinks 2+2=4 and another says that 2+2=6, a suggested compromise to agree that 2+2=5 would also be rejected, but might be seen as stonewalling. And no, I am not saying any opinion is as right as "2+2=4", but am just pointing out possible reasons why what appears to be a compromise to one person, may appear not to be one to someone else. (and I have seen signs of this on all sides of this debate) Regards, MartinRe 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, as it has always been standard to make and transclude user subpages. --SPUI (T - C) 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no basis for deletion per the German Solution. Also they are most definitely not T1. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy them to my userpage UBX directory (UBX), which is open to all (non-personal attack/reality-compatible) userboxes. If anyone deletes it there, I will undelete it. Simple. TGS will be implemented, by community consensus. Xoloz 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, I got this idea from User:Cyde Weys, no friend of userboxes, and he is helping me implement it, so I'd say it has some sort of "bipartisan support". Xoloz 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, Xoloz, look closely. These were already in user space. Also, if you just undelete them you'll end up being accused of wheel warring. --StuffOfInterest 19:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I know exactly what I said SOI (although I take no offense at your point :) The difference between Winhunter and me is that I can undelete myself, without process hoops. Anyone who wheel-warred with me over my own userspace would go to ArbCom with me, and not be looked on too brightly. If I must wheel-war and lose adminship... oh well. If it ends the userbox war, it is worth it. I trust, however, that my fellow admins would respect my userspace, even if they delete from other "normal users" (sic). If they don't, we'll get this settled. Xoloz 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I hate to say this, but regardless of how it gets there I'm starting to think that ArbCom is the right place to go. I had hoped that when WP:GUS came around, backed by Jimbo's own words, things would finally settle. It appears that this isn't the case and higher level policy may be needed. --StuffOfInterest 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to see fewer user boxes, and I don't care where they are stored. The German system doesn't answer the fundamental question: What is Wikipedia?

Some user boxes are clearly deleted under T1 when they are not inflammatory. The emotional attachment which people show to a particular userbox when it is deleted can indicate whether it is inflammatory, and some raise no hackles. I wouldn't personally delete marginal userboxes until a new policy gains consensus. And people wheel warring over this issue just demonstrates they are too involved to have a dispassionate opinion. What we need in the short term is a simple and non-time consuming way to determine which boxes should be kept and which deleted while policy is worked out.

I suggest a panel of five people representing differing shades of opinion, with a process that means some are deleted and some are kept. Then everyone else can get on with more productive things. It's silly to have so many people involved when at the end of the day, they'll either all be deleted or all be recreated. Stephen B Streater 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Does a userbox having people with emotional attachment automatically make them inflammatory? What about the organ donor one? That had lots of emotional attachment, but it is almost completely inconceivable that it is inflammatory. (I just renewed my driver's license today, and made sure to check the box for organ donation, in part because this issue reminded me of it.)

It makes no sense to do anything with userboxes until policy is worked out. All deleting some does is inflame the situation and make it look like those doing the deleting are trying to get their licks in before they're told not to. That's the fundamental argument here: an admin took it upon himself to act while policy is still in flux, and the consensus appears to be that that is objectionable. Your panel would be even more so. Jay Maynard 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A panel might not be a bad idea, but I'd be shocked if anything becomes a policy on userboxes without just being done for a while first. I'd suggest that whomever forms such a panel look for 1) regular participation (no use having someone who drops out for months at a time), 2) demonstrated ability to be educational in discussing the topic, and for at least most of the panel members 3) demonstrated nuanced decisionmaking - no use having a panel of people whose opinions are predictable before they even see the userbox, as that would defeat the reason for forming a panel. I don't think this could become policy, but if a few people formed a panel that would chime in when requested, and that panel met Stephen B Streater's and my criteria, it could help and could even be a good enhancement to WP:GUS. I'm going to boldly take the suggestion, Jay's and my comments over to the talk page for that. So please follow up on this idea at it's talk page. GRBerry 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Policy Consulting

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Policy Consulting

The article about Strategic Policy Consulting was recently deleted and protected against re-creation, along with its associated redirects. This article is referred to in the frequently vandalised article about Alireza Jafarzadeh. Strategic Policy Consulting is relevant to a current event, the Iran and weapons of mass destruction issue. The company, through its links with the Mujahedeen-e_Khalq, is the primary US source of intelligence about Iran at present. The advice it provides may lead to US military action against Iran, thereby changing the course of history in the near future. A Wikipedia article about this company may be referred to by key decision makers throughout the world as they weigh the value of the advice it provides. With this in mind I would like to suggest the article be re-created so that it can be expanded and linked appropriately. --Dave 08:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the value of the article, I have to say that "A Wikipedia article about this company may be referred to by key decision makers throughout the world as they weigh the value of the advice it provides" is the scariest thing I'm likely to read today. Are you serious? · rodii · 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment was the article deleted by speedy or via AfD? And yes, the idea of the government consulting wikipedia is very frightening. --tjstrf 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Policy Consulting. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Dave probably means that key decision markers will be consulting the subject of the article, not the article itself. If it is the "primary US source of intelligence about Iran", that sounds like a claim of notability not considered by the original AfD that would be worth a re-examination. Is there a third-party source to support this claim? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not how I read it. Not that it's a big deal, but I read it as saying "key decisions maker will turn to the Wikipedia article for background on this company when they decide how much weight to give the company's intelligence." And that seems wrong to me. At the very least, we should be careful not to give credence to any claims about the company unless they meet a pretty high standard of verification. But I think that takes us out of deletion review territory. I agree with what you say about re-examining the evidence. · rodii · 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect/undelete. The article was deleted as an advertisement, but only 4 users even commented on the deletion. A rewritten form should be acceptable and it has a seemingly good claim to notability based on its owner. --tjstrf 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, but don't object to a rewrite if notability can be established. Just because only four people commented does not make this an invalid deletion. Discuss process. Please note that Googling '"Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc." -wikipedia' only brings up 55 hits, and the first five of those are various websites created by the company. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: I was the person who originally put this article up for AfD, way back just over a year ago. At the time, the article contained nothing to establish notability. One of the phrases from the article prior to that deletion: "there is a new power house in foreign policy namely Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc." The article read like spam, and I feel was deleted appropriately. The four versions that have been speedy deleted since the AfD deletion have contained less content than the first entry, with the content being less spam like but containing nothing to assert notability. That Alireza Jafarzadeh is the company's president is not in my opinion sufficient to make the company itself notable, as what minimal content has been included in the five deleted versions of the article could very easily be merged into the Alireza Jafarzadeh article. There is a claim above that this company is the primary source of intelligence on Iran for the United States. If that is true, then that is certainly enough claim to notability for an article. However, the claim at this point is uncited. I invite the person who made this deletion review request to create a proposed article at Strategic Policy Consulting/Temp, complete with citations and references substantiating this group's notability. This will give us an opportunity to fairly evaluate if there really is a claim to notability here or if the content should be included in the Alireza Jafarzadeh article, with perhaps a redirect from the subject article. --Durin 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletions as recreated content. Allow a rewrite in the Temp space citing independent third-party sources and demonstrating how this company meets the criteria of WP:CORP. I note that this page was rewritten during the AFD discussion by user:12.38.30.1, an IP address whose registration traces back to the same street address as this company. It was reposted word-for-word by that same IP and by two other IPs, leading me to believe that this is a single insider posting about his/her company. If you think you or your company might be important enough for an article, it's always a good idea to wait and let someone else write it. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: In reviewing the contribution history of the anon IP user, every edit made to other articles has apparently either been deleted or reverted as vandalism. That does seem to make it harder to assume good faith in this particular case. Rossami (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted stub article which made absolutely no claim to encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

This article was previously nominated for deletion with a decision of non-consensus. I question that the article meets neutrality and verifiability conditions for wiki articles. The original article was submitted by a member of the chat site as a vanity piece. The author, Avi, goes by the same name here and on the chat site. He is listed on the web chat site as a site supporter, which he describes as people who contributed funds to sustain the site. Also, most of the article is not verifiable as to who visits, size or influence.Deletionary 03:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• User's 5 edits are all to a AfD or DRV. Kimchi.sg 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have reason to think that the judgement of non consensus is incorrect, and that really there WAS a consensus to delete but the admin missed it, the best thing to do is to wait an appropriate time, and relist the article. DRV is not for revisiting the deletion discussion itself (which it often is helpful to give a link to, though, by the way) but rather for discussing whether there's some reason that it needs to be overturned. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

11 June 2006

The Esplanade Mall

Sheesh - I had to hunt through my browser history to find this. It was deleted recently on VFD. I found it soon after in CAT:CSD tagged at a repost. When I found it, it already was not "just a lengthy list of stores that exist at a mall" as the originally-deleted article was. I cleaned it up and completely rewrote it; the article included information about it being closed due to Hurricane Katrina. And yet it was still deleted as a repost. --SPUI (T - C) 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I was the admin who last deleted this article (it had been deleted as a repost once before). Although the content had been slightly rewritten it was fundamentally the same article. I believe that there may have been some confusion here, because the original article also contained a list of stores (but not only a list of stores - as a comment on the AfD indicated). Please let me know if you want me to retrieve the actual contents. Cheers TigerShark 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  I remember rewriting it - the grammar was horrible. Also, one of the "votes" reads:

  Even the cleaned-up version (of Clearview Mall) is simply a list of stores. If the article were to contain additional information, such as history of the mall, significant stores that have come and gone, significant events held at the mall, etc. I'd say keep.

  Given that the article as rewritten included some history, either Rehcsif didn't bother to read the article, or the article as rewritten was not the one on VFD. --SPUI (T - C) 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. The article as it stood at the time when the AfD was closed and the article deleted was substantially similar to the most recent version, the main difference being that the most recent version was better written and some cruft had been jettisoned (which did not affect the rationale for deletion - non-notability). A mention of the mall being affected by Hurricane Katrina was inserted into the article only an hour after the AfD began, and didn't sway any editors. And is that really the most interesting thing to say about this shopping centre? Certainly Hurricane Katrina damaged loads of places and doesn't confer notability by association. Unless there's something verified about it that hasn't been brought up yet worth putting in an encyclopaedia, keep deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If "votes" that concur with deletion of the present article due to its problems are to be taken as "votes" against any future article on the topic, I will be sure to "vote" to keep any article about a shopping mall, no matter how shitty the writing is. On the one hand, people say to "vote" on how the current article is, not on what it could be, but then (presumably) others delete any new article as a re-creation. --SPUI (T - C) 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. For any mall, it is worth describing its role as a transit hub, if this is the case. TruthbringerToronto 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD per TruthbringerToronto. (I tagged the latest recreation of the article, which SPUI removed.) Let's see if SPUI (and others?) can expand the article enough. Kimchi.sg 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Relist might as well see the contents and judge based on those, it sounds like it might be an expandable subject. --tjstrf 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We already did that, and so far no new content has been presented to judge since the AfD closed 3 days ago. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It was listed alongside Clearview Mall, and both received an overwhelming proportion of delete votes, including comments like "malls are not inheirantly notable" and "malls are generally not notable." and "I appreciate the idea and effort, but articles on the malls of towns falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to use one of my rare free moments to make a quick comment about this article. I originally listed the article for AfD when it was a list of malls, I would still place in AfD after seeing the recreated article. This mall wasn't the only thing that was hit by Hurricane Katrina, many more things were devasted by it. For instance, homes, roads, a large stadium, people's lives. By placing an article on a mall and stating that it's notable because it closed due to a large Hurricane, is making a mockery of people's lives and of the purpose of Wikipedia. Nothing notable happened in this mall to make it noteworthy, and the closing of a mall due to a hurricane (which is what the mall is SUPOSED to do, so that makes it norm), is not anywhere near the quality that Wikipedia needs to maintain. Yanksox 11:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. I reviewed a number of the deleted versions of this article both before and after the deletion decision. I do not consider them sufficiently different to have addressed the core concerns raised during the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete as an improper speedy deletion. Silensor 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Ling

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

• Shame about Mailer leaving; it does mean we can't ask him to explain himself. This seems a borderline case; I'd suggest overturning the close and relisting. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse closure. I think you are confusing the way these deletion debates are handled. Consensus is a higher standard than a mere supermajority. It means that we pay as much or more attention to the weight of arguments as we do to the weight of numbers. Reviewing the discussion, I make a vote-count of 16 "delete" to 7 "keep" (with one probable troll discounted). Had there been strong evidence, that could have been sufficient to interpret as the necessary "rough consensus" for deletion. In this case, however, the arguments focused on whether the person is notable enough to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies and neither side of this debate presented strong evidence either way. Furthermore, many of the participants explicitly qualified their opinions as "weak" (5 of the "keeps" were phrased as "weak keep" and 2 of the "deletes" were "weak delete"). Closing this discussion as "no consensus" seems to me to be well within the reasonable discretion of a closing admin.
  Note: a "no consensus" decision defaults to keep for now but does not prevent anyone from gathering stronger evidence and renominating it for deletion after a reasonable delay. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How, exactly, does one gain stronger evidence of non-notability? You cannot prove a negative, right? I understand that it is not merely a matter of votes, but I offered up what I could, and no one else had much to say. This may be because there wasn't much left to say - those for keeping didn't speak up to justify their votes, while those who voted to delete explained their specific rationale (re notability). Were they expected to expound on it for a full paragraph each? Clearly they felt the matter was a simple one and didn't feel the need to orate on it. While I respect that this isn't necessary what is sought after in an AfD, please let me know what else could have been done, if something wasn't handled well. Girolamo Savonarola 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To gain stronger evidence of non notability, search in more and different, yet still appropriate, places and present the negative results. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, Lar, surely the onus is on those claiming notability to prove that is the case, and not the other way round as it's based on WP:V, verifying that he's notable. (also see comment below) Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I was just directly answering the question asked. However, on a RE list, I think the lister has some responsibility to present new information, sufficient to justify why the previous result was unsatisfactory, or to show that things have changed in some way . That said, I agree with what you say below (and endorse the closure), because "the passage of time with no new notability proof" is a kind of "change in some way". ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure the afd focused on whether the subject was notable enough, and the opinion seemed to be borderline, verging on no, so "no consensus" seems a fair enough call on the afd. (if in doubt, don't delete, but not enough case for full keep) However, the notability claims need to be strengthened to remove that doubt, if this is not done, then it could be brought to afd again after a reasonable time, and if the arguements are similar, it will probably swing to delete, with the additional factor of no claims being found since the last afd weighing against the notability claim. Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Mailer diablo does not need to explain himself, the no consensus to delete is quite clear. Silensor 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Siberian language

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

• Comment Original deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian language. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - The current contents are indeed vastly different than the old, and it does seem perhaps a bit odd to delete as a recreate of a validly deleted article. That being said, the new content was incredibly poor, with bad spelling, links to livejournal, and many of the other markers of a poor article. I also wonder whether it's appropriate to call this a language -- by the article it sounds more like a description of a dialect (perhaps like calling a Boston accent a Boston language?). In sum, I don't know if there's any content worth keeping, and the title's probably misleading too. I'm open to lines of reasoning by other people on this one. --Improv 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The matter is just to construct a full language on the base of dialect --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you saying this is a project to build a language out of a dialect? Are you involved? How big is this? --Improv 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. Yes. 2. We have group of 81 persons who work at it - http://community.livejournal.com/learn_siberian/profile, but I am the leader of this group. 3. It has 15000 words in dictionary now http://volgota.com/govor/language/lj.doc.zip? online dictionary provided by ukrainian research group (NOT me, I can not program) http://totem.in.ua/sib/trans.php, it has rather wide literature of abouat 100 texts http://volgota.com/govor/, it has news service http://volgota.com/news/, so surely it is not OR --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Endorse Deletion - No disrespect is intended for you or your project, but this is too small and too new a project to be covered on Wikipedia, and this smacks of using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Maybe in a few years, this might be appropriate for an article, but as for right now, the article is too close to original research (I doubt there are independent studies of the language) and promo. --Improv 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Utter nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as the "Siberian language". --Timothy Usher 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • just see it at http://volgota.com - newspaper, books, site interface. Wiki has many articles about languages not so developed as Siberian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The language was developed from the time of last deletion, now it is very complicated, many texts translated and written, many people learning it, a big site launched, so it is not "non-notable" conlang now --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I absolutely agree with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. By the way, the site about siberian language and test wiki on siberian --Steel archer 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Both of these accounts were created to vote on Deletion Review. Not cool. --Improv 16:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You can see my history in UK and Yaroslav's (Anarch) history in RU Wikipedias. Why new users can't vote? --Steel archer 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. --Pjacobi 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, looking at the article, the VfD was as valid today as it was last year. --fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, elucidate your thought. --Steel archer 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable constructed language. There are no independent, neutral sources to confirm the existance of a specific "Siberian language" as described in the article. There are several languages spoken in Siberia, but this article does not adress any of them. --Ezeu 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The test wiki is not an independent reliable source. Much of it is written by some people participating here. --Ezeu 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Siberian language was prohibited in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. And now, most of people which are against this language are russian imperialists indeed. And this is a reason why it is rather difficult to find sources about siberian. There are no full literature siberian language: Yaroslav Zolotaryov just constructs it basing on many siberian dialects. So, you can hardly ever find people speak on ""literature"" siberian - only on its dialects. --Steel archer 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist to AfD: from my reading in linguistics I would expect it to be deleted there, but it would give non-admins the chance to debate the deletion on the merits of its content, especially as it doesn't seem to meet the recreated content CSD. --Aquilina 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - This page needs to be undeleted. The language has already been constructed. It is based on a local dialect, but its' origins are really beside the point. There is, for example, a wiki page for Talossan language, that has been constructed by a single person for a country completely invented by him, and whose "words and grammar are just made up at random". Surely Siberian has far better basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.29.135 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• The speedy-deleted version was significantly different from the deleted version. On that basis, I'm afraid that we must overturn the speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. However, I am deeply skeptical that the article will prevail during the deletion discussion. The prior deletion discussion was unanimous and included the opinion of the alleged author of this recently constructed language. None of the concerns raised in the prior deletion debate have been answered either in the redeleted article nor in this discussion so far. The wiki does not meet the required standards for a reliable source and the google test (168 unique hits) returns very little that appears relevant. Every hit I scanned used the phrase "Siberian language" in the casual sense of "a language used by a community indiginous to the geographic area of Siberia", not in the sense of a unified language. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can try the google test in russian language, and will see many sources about the siberian not from me or Volgota group. Being an artefact of local culture, it is simply not mentioned in the english-speaking audience --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Without sources that are functionally verifiable by the english-speaking participants of the English Wikipedia, that won't help much. Perhaps this would be more appropriate if transwiki'd to the Russian Wikipedia]? Rossami (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Better to the ukrainian article in http://ukr.wikipedia.org/wiki, because we believe it is more ibjective. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak overturn and relist per Aquilina. The version debated on VfD was a short stub, while the version deleted as G4 was fairly detailed. That said, I'd say the new version fails WP:OR pretty hard, and should be deleted or heavily shortened on that basis unless independent sources are provided. It's almost a WP:SNOW case, but I'm personally willing to give it its five days on AfD, just in case I'm proven wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Some independent sources http://dpni.org/forum/post48701.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Do you have any sources in English? The sources above may well substantiate the claims in the article for all I know, but I can't really tell since my grasp of Russian is almost nonexistent. Failing that, you might try to find a neutral established Wikipedian who understands Russian to review the sources — any volunteers? (In any case, this discussion belongs on AfD, should the article get relisted there, not here on DRV. If you wish to reply in length, please do so on my talk page or wait for the AfD listing.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist as different, where I will vote delete as this asserts the factual existence of this language, but no reliable sources have been produced to suggest that it is anything other than a conlang. Just zis Guy you know? 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Mikka, who speaks several comparable languages and is (unlike the average AfD voter) able to understand the supposed sources. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. original research. No independent information from anywhere but fans' writings provided. (forums are not allowed as sources for wikipedia) `'mikka (t) 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: this is nót about the question whether it is a good article or not. If there's something wrong with an article, it should be improved. Perhaps the English wasn't perfect indeed, and perhaps there was a link to a blog or something, but I think this article was still a lot better than the average stub. That kind of things can be fixed easily without deleting an article. Neither is this about the question whether constructed languages in general should be in Wikipedia or not. Nor about the question whether this article was original research. This is about the way it was deleted! Every time when a conlang is listed for deletion, they say: at present this language is not notable enough, but when that has changed, by all means create an article about it. Now, I think there are reasons to assume that that is indeed the case here. I can see many reasons why the language is notable enough. But even if I'm wrong, the merits of Siberian should be discussed properly in an AfD discussion, but definitely not here. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Surely, the article can be changed, my english is poor, and my view to the language is definitely non-neutral, so if would be better article, it would be fine --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:NOR. It's just another LiveJournal flashmob. MaxSem 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's exactly the point. That might have been true one year ago, it definitely isn't true anymore. But again, let's not start discussing the article itself, but the way it has been deleted. At present, no one can even read what the discussion is about. I think the least it deserves is a proper AfD discussion, pending which every participant in the discussion can read the article. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've temporarily undeleted the history for the duration of this DRV discussion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme speedy keep deleted. OR, an attempt at advertising an nn conlang, nothing has changed to make this more notable than the first decision to delete. We're not here to reargue the AfD, but to discuss whether or not the original deletion was appropriate. It was, it still is. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but this is not about the question whether the original deletion was appropriate. It no doubt was. If little Pete writes an article about his hobbies, then it will be deleted. But if he's suddenly elected president of the USA, does that mean there can't be an article about him because there has already been a valid VfD? What bothers me is this: once an article has survived an AfD, it can be relisted for deletion again, and again, and again, until the deletionists get their way. But once an article has been deleted, there is no way go get it back, even if things may have changed. I think that's bad, very bad! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: out of curiosity I looked into the website of the "language". After reading the "translation" of Pushkin quoted below I am more inclined to believe this is a practical joke rather than a serious attempt to revive a supposedly extinct "Siberian" dialect of Russian. Native Russian speakers, prepare for a good laugh:

  Мой дедя шыбко чесных веров,

  Кода-от шыбко захворал,

  Людям дык всю дыхню зашкерил,

  В горбыль всех просто зайобал.

  And there is more of this.`'mikka (t) 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • But such were dialetical expressions of the same meaning which is in Pushkin verse, and you laugh simply for diregarding the folk speech --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, Eugene Onegin in hillbilly... ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Tread carefully the fine line between humour and mockery. --Ezeu 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • No mockery of Pushkin there, Pushkin himself liked dialects, used them, if he were alive now, he perhaps voted for siberian here. His poem "Ruslan and Ludmila" was also regarded as mockery just for using dialectical words and common people's relation to the topic of this poem. So in fact, our group continues Pushkin's work, but conservators are against him --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. Just like "bad spelling", "links to livejournal", "too small and too new a project", "no such thing as the Siberian language", "no reliable sources", "promotion" and "original research" are irrelevant here. Again, this discussion should not be about the language itself. We have AfD discussions for that. This discussion is about the question whether an article that has been deleted in the remote past can or cannot be recreated. The admin in question has unilaterally deleted the article and locked the page, and thát is the decision I'm questioning here. People's personal tastes have no place in such discussion. For the record, I don't have a clear opinion on the matter. I'm in no way connected to the creators of the language. What I can tell as one of Wikipedia's self-proclaimed resident conlang experts, is that a lot seems to have changed since the last AfD. If the language has indeed a group of 80 active users, and if there is some press coverage, then it just might qualify for an article. Besides, we have this discussion about a wikipedia in the language going on. Personally, I don't believe this is a hoax. But like I said, that kind of arguments belong in an AfD discussion, not here. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This was not an argument. This was a comment that started this thread. This zolotarev guy extended his hobby joke as to suggest a siberian language wikipedia. How do you imagine wikipedia in hillbilly. This alone says something about this project. As for 80 active users: how do you know that? Somehow I don't believe Zolotaryov. The basic argument against undeletion is wikipedia:Verifiability. The "some" press coverage seen is not a reliable source, it is still word of language creator's mouth, not of an independent linguistics expert. In other words, the major objection voiced during deletion is not addressed by the new version. Article size doesn't matter. `'mikka (t) 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • A hundred years ago Ukrainian was also considered "hillbilly Russian" by the czarist government. In other words, thát argument doesn't really hold stake. As for your point regarding verifiability: I tend to agree with you here. I'd love to see some samples of real press coverage, because thát is IMO what makes the difference. I don't know whether to believe Mr. Zolotaryov or not. The whole discussion evokes quite strong reminiscences of High Icelandic. If you haven't seen it, I'd say it's worth to take a look at the AfD discussion there. My whole point is only that I think the subject deserves proper discussion, and this is not the place for it. In a normal AfD discussion I certainly wouldn't have voted "keep" without convincing arguments. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 22:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • But it should be defined, what argument are relevant in the english wiki. If it will be defined with certainity, I shall find them. "There is no such language at all" surely is not an argument. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted this nonsense, please. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. AfD had six deletes, no keeps. No suggestion of any voting irregularities or debatable sysop judgement. I note too that the article has no real references; the fact that one of the external links is described as "Volgota, the main promo site" strongly suggests that the purpose of the article is not to synthesize published factual material into an encyclopedia article, but to promote a project. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite so. Nobody is arguing that the AfD was invalid. But for heaven's sake, that was over a year ago! A lot can change in the meantime. If Yaroslav can somehow substantiate his claims about the number of speakers, and provide some verifiable info regarding press coverage, then I can't see why the article wouldn't deserve a second chance. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • In what way can I substantiate it? What info about the press is verifiable? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to believe that this Yaroslav fellow (among others) has any existence beyond that of a sockpuppet created to vote in this deletion review..Timothy Usher 05:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • But I do! User's first contribution was dated 10 June, 18:49 (UTC). This deletion review was dated 11 June, 9:32 (UTC). So tell me: how can this account have been created with the sole purpose of voting here, if there wasn't any vote yet? I think it's always better to assume good faith! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 07:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nn and ue. Also, there seems to be a campaign to start a separate Wikipedia in this language. What's next Klingon and Elvish Wikipedias? --Irpen 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There used to be a wikipedia in Klingon, but it has been closed down. An Elvish wikipedia has been proposed, but I don't think there's enough support for it. BTW, I'm not thát frequent a guest here; what does "ue" mean? —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Those must have been shut down for a reason. ue=unencyclopedic, nn=non-notable. --Irpen 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nonsense. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

10 June 2006

Template:Major_programming_languages

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

• Note: Original TFD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_25#Template:Major_programming_languages — xaosflux ^Talk 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I would have closed this TfD the same way IceKarma did. Unless Lulu's opinion would have brought with it a fantastic new argument, I doubt including his "vote" amongst the others would have tipped the balance, either. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  No,I wouldn't have had any fantastic argument that was much different from other voters. I just think that a supermajority (i.e. 75-80%, or at the least 66%) should be required for deletion, rather than just a majority (absent evidence of sockpuppetry, or clearly more experienced editors on one side of a vote, or other special circumstance... none of which existed here). 11/7 is pretty much the same thing as 11/6 in this regard. LotLE×talk 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well, *fD's being not a vote is more than just discounting inexperience or sockpuppetry. It also means that an overwhelming majority is not required for consensus to exist. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm generally in favor of keeping articles over deleting them (as long as they're maintainable and verifiable), but it seems clear from the discussion that maintaining the template was plain infeasible, by consensus. I also note that there was no prejudice against creating a new, more maintainable template. Powers 18:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  When did I mention the tally? When closing AfDs, MfDs, RfDs, and the occasional (during the long dark teatime of the soul) TfD, I make a point of never counting the number of "votes". Knowledge of the raw numbers will shed no light on the appropriate course of action, and is thus unnecessary and occasionally even obfuscatory. Bugger the tally. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lulu: Tfd is not a vote! Don't count comments like it was one. --Cyde↔Weys 03:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik Möller

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

• there are also two previous versions of Erik Möller that have been deleted previously, the first was a redirect and the second was very short. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• There are about 4,000 copies of my book. It's a niche publication about wikis, weblogs and open source software. I don't think having written a single book with such a small run makes me a notable person.--Eloquence* 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, hasn't sold over 5,000 copies of his book, also doesn't meet "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" of WP:BIO. --Rory096 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To be accurate, there have been numerous reviews in newspapers, magazines and radio; I get a regular sample of those from my publisher. But again, the print run is fairly small, and a bit of media attention is to be expected given the topics covered.--Eloquence* 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Do we really need a Wikipedia article for every Wikipedian, even the more famous ones? What's next, an article for me? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Margana found it nessecary to prove her point by creating that article in violation of WP:POINT. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The subject of the page nominated the page for deletion with the reason "Non-notable, wikicruft." The editor in question is a very experienced and highly respected editor with a deep understanding of our policies, standards and traditions. If even he argues to delete the page, we should trust his judgment. Incidentally, my own reading of our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies confirms that decision. One niche publication is not generally considered sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if Erik Möller says he's not notable, I believe him. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Only claim to significance outside of Wikipedia is being a published author... of a book with ~4,000 printed copies. The deletion of this article is perfectly valid.--SB | T 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Just zis Guy. AnnH ♫ 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
  • user's third edit to Wikipedia
  • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• 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" [16] - 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. [17]
  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 [18] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [19]
  5. MSN [20] and Yahoo [21] 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: [22]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Thanks, Kimchi. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Kimchi. Normally, deletion review is not a re-vote on the merits of the arguments advanced in AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 12 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)

• Note from User:Netscott: Despite what the nominator has said, the actual reasoning for speedy deletion of this policy proposal was general criteria for speedy deletion #5, "Pages created by banned users while they were banned.". This policy proposal was created by the banned editor Resid Gulerdem. While User:Raphael1 did make some perfunctory changes to the WP:OURS proposal that Resid Gulerdem created, his putting it online was sooner a proxy act for Gulerdem. Due to these facts alone this deletion review appears prima facie unqualified to even continue and I would recommend to the first admin reading this to close it accordingly. Netscott 13:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? You have chosen to leave a rude, snotty message on my talk page as well. Sceptre made a mistake, that's all. I should not have gone to any particular length to point up this fact; it's enough to correct it. We all make mistakes but they can be fixed.

There is no speedy criterion for pages created by proxy; that is an invention. Further, I detest your use of legalese to insist that again process be circumvented. Please get off your high horse and let us express our community will. John Reid 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting if somewhat agressive/inappropriate response to my rather polite talk page message. User:Sceptre made no mistake in speedy deleting this banned user's policy proposal creation. As submittor of this policy proposal for MfD I would have opted for speedy deletion (as it rightly was) had I properly thought through the proxy nature of it's creation on Wikipedia relative to speedy deletion general criteria #5. As it was I admit that I wasn't clear about that. Netscott 21:04, 12 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)
• Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Editor was openly working to post content for a banned user. Shell ^babelfish 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see any reason to continue the disruption this page was causing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, editing by proxy for a banned user by another user whose days on Wikipedia are numbered. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore the page especially because of John Reids objection #3. Raphael1 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nuked from orbit, banned users forming policy through proxies is a big no no and in fact a notable admin was just de-sysoped for similarly natured behavior. If this policy proposal is undeleted User:Raphael1 will likely continue to operate as Resid Gulerdem's proxy in trying to alter it and will continue to formulate it according to Gulerdem's instructions. Netscott 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and reopen MFD debate. G5 does not apply if somebody does what a banned user wanted to do, because the "proxy" has then taken responsibility for the edit. Apart from that, I agree with Rossami that this should probably kept, and probably marked as rejected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted [er Shell Kenney, Netscott, et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted.
  1. Posting to the mailing lists are, as far as I'm aware, copyrighted with all rights reserved. At the moment any recreation of this proposal will be a copyright violation of Rgulerdem's work.
  2. Even if Rgulerdem releases the content under GFDL, there's absolutely no way we're going to be able to create workable policy out of a banned user's musings. This will be WP:RGULERDEM for all time. If there is anything useful in there (and as far as I can see it's all instruction creeping bureaucratic claptrap) then I'm sure it'll come up somewhere else. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no copyright issue. See Rgulerdems recent mail. Furthermore I consider it an affront towards the Wikipedia community to state, that this proposal will always be Rgulerdems proposal. At least an admin should know, that nobody owns anything here. Raphael1 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Be affronted all you want to, unless Rgulderdem has specifically released this to the public domain, it's still a copyvio. "I approve the actions taken and have no problem with these actions." is not a copyright release. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course it is. Rgulerdem is a previous Wikipedia editor, therefore he is fully aware, that approving to post WP:OURS to Wikipedia means agreeing to GFDL. Raphael1 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

When one opens the edit dialog, there's msg saying

Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.

right besides the save button. So if he owns the copyright, he can't pull it away. If he doesn't, then he can't release under gfdl and must be deleted. That said Keep deleted since it's unnecessary. -- Drini 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he can "pull it away". Every copyright owner can anytime choose to license his work under GFDL. But after he has done so, he can't make it "his own" again. Raphael1 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All this talk about copyright is nonsense, another attempt at an end run around community consensus and due process. I want to see this awful proposal, not hear about it. John Reid 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence/OURS there you go, you can see it. Metros232 19:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy Pages created by a banned user are speediable. The method it's created by doesn't matter, be that by direct editing, a sockpuppet, a proxy editor or even telekinesis, it's still a creation of a banned user (whose name should have been credited in the edit summary for GFDL compliance (see WP:AFC step 2). Regards, MartinRe 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though I missed that chance of crediting him, I credited the original author here and here. Raphael1 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per NoSeptember and Zoe.Timothy Usher 21:11, 12 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 insert a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 26.5%, Merge - 4 votes 26.5%

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)
  • Read the material I have entered here -- AT LENGTH -- and in the remaining article talk page and my talk page. I have covered every accusation made against the article and shown that every accusation made was untrue. There is NO original research and the article was the result of a collective effort. How can all this overwhelming proof be ignored? How am I supposed to correct a situation that does not in reality exist? The article was put up for AfD under false pretenses. How can that be allowed to stand? -- Jason Palpatine 20:44, 11 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 arguments given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguments, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Over a 2-month period, I showed more than enough facts to demonstrate that the charges leveled for AfD were untrue. Despite this, the charges were upheld with the truth being totally ignored -- as just about everyone here is doing. I have laid out the truth in detail here. The facts are overwhelming -- but you and the other completely ignore it! -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 11 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on Jason Palpatine's answer, I have decided not to express an opinion about whether the admin's decision should or should not be overturned. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

According to User:Scm83x: ”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”

I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with

Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

in the main article.

If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article [as of 18:50, 18 April 2006] In other words, that original article material was produced by other editors here.

The following editors all contributed to the article in the month before I took a serious interest:

User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS

This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was

"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all."

The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

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

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:

13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)

11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)

Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

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

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

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

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

Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub-article] inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal WebPages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. -- Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but Wikipedia copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it.

My sources are list above.

When he made his decision, fuddlemark wrote:

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

?

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

OK. Lets go over it again:

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

Accusation -- Original Research.

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

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

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

Accusation -- Unencyclopedic tone.

• What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? There is nothing in the Wikipedia about it. The article is a recitation of a series of events. What about that could be considered “unencyclopedic?” This accusation is nonsense.

When my edits to the article came under ATTACK, I defended my position. I presented clear, concise arguments – whereupon I was accused of original research. I responded to this false accusation by citing my sources of information -- which were labeled "irrelevant"! That is called hypocrisy.

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) ^{speak your mind}

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

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

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

Is there no one who will give this request of mine a clear point for point response? -- Jason Palpatine 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. WP:NOT reader's digest. And please people, brief comments -- nobody wants to read these long essays. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How can I be brief when trying to present facts countering a series of untrue accusations? With al the facts i have presented, how can you ignore the truth? -- Jason Palpatine 10:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• For disclosure, note that I called for this article's deletion in the original debate. Based on my reading of Mr, Palpatine's comments above, I see no actual refutation of the arguments, but instead a fundamental misunderstanding of those original arguments. On the issue of sources, the author seems to have, rather than summarising the interprations of others, he's taken those as a basis for his own interpration of the film. He does not seem to understand the "no original research" and neutral point of view policies, nor the way consesus forming discussion works on Wikipedia. Personally, I thought his analysis was interesting and unique, and really, deserves to be published somewhere. However, that somewhere is simply not Wikipedia. This article was redundant and in violation of core policies, it should not be restored. I believe that Mr. Palpatine could be a valued contributor to Wikipedia, but he still has much to learn.--SB | T 02:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disclosure? Huh? Redundant and in violation of core policies? Sorry, but if that is the case, what was the point of the too big/split flag then? -- Jason Palpatine 06:34, 13 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)
• Endorse closure of the second deletion debate. I find no process problems in that discussion nor do I find any evidence of bias. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Image:WikiPâques.png

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

• 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)

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".

13 June 2006

IRCDig

This article was deleted due to notability claims that were false. IRCDig is just as notable, if not more notable than most torrent search engine articles wikipedia decides to keep. The deletion discussion was split amongst keep and delete votes. The article followed all criteria for a valid article and then some. This article was incorrectly afd'd and should be re-instated. The supporters of deletion argued that the author was the only one that had contributed to the article but what they failed to realize was that the article was only like a week old. LOL... I discovered it when it was in it's afd discussion and contributed a keep vote and would have contributed to the article if I would have had time to see it. KernelPanic 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• AfD here. Whether the website is truly notable or not, this is a textbook proper close. Endorse closure unless notability can be accurately verified. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And what is the official wikipedia process for verifying notability? You say it was a text book closure whether the site is notable or not then you say you endorse the closure until the notability can be accurately verified? Which one is it? If wikipedia is going to allow it's admins to delete articles due to notability then there needs to be a clear and concise process for verifying notability. Until this happens, it is completely open to personal interpretation, which is ALWAYS going to be a mistake due to personal biases. KernelPanic 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not "until," "unless." I'll gladly petition to overturn the closure if you can provide some sort of evidence that this is a notable thing. The "admins" didn't delete this, as much as a consensus by a not-insignificant number of fellow editors felt deletion was the correct path, and no claim was made by you or the other editor stating keep to make any sort of notability evident. I'm one of the most inclusive editors on here, and I'm not even convinced that this program is worth an article at this stage. Seriously, prove me wrong and I change my view. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Show us how it meets the standards of WP:WEB "the official wikipedia process for verifying notability" as you requested. This means independent news coverage and/or awards for the site. Lots of Google hits does not make something notable. My username gets 13,300 hits...am I notable? Metros232 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the same respect, using Alexa as a source of showing something as being not notable is not an accurate method either, which is what the afd argument was based on. There are numerous articles about ircdig and numerous other discussions on independant news groups, message boards, etc. You can use the very same google search you condemned to find these artcles. I agree that the amount of information that google has indexed on a particular thing does not make it notable, but I would say that over 3000 uniques a day from over 115 different countries does. Was this article really clutterinh up wikipedia so much, or offending other editors so much that it just had to be removed? wikipedia has become a joke. Now I know why so many people talk trash about it. It is full of a bunch of immature kids who like to try and use their so called "power" to dictate what articles say and what articles even exist. Keep it deleted if it makes you that happy. It is not even worth the argument anymore. The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end. Maybe you should delete your entire site according to your own regulations. The only press I see about wikipedia is negative press (Criticism of Wikipedia). Does that make it notable? KernelPanic 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Lately all the press that George W. Bush gets is negative, is he still notable? :) And to think, I'm a Republican and yet I make that kinda statement. None of the Google hits I see are news articles. This is the closest [23]. There's also one that's a press release from IRCDig. The first one is not a reliable source and press releases don't count for notability.

The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end.

Or could it be that no one's looking for the article because it's not notable? The amount of hits he gets on his site from our article matters so little to our consideration of whether or not to keep an article since we're not a source of advertisement for websites. Metros232 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Relisting to generate more discussion would have been a viable alternative, but the two keep commentators both are new enough contributors and had weak enough points that ignoring their presence is a reasonable decision on the part of the closing admin. Nothing in the AfD or the discussion above asserts that the article met WP:WEB, the topic specific notability guideline. The bit about "only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article" indicates that the article was viewed as an advertisement. Advertisements are a direct violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a section of one of the basic policies. As to the other torrent sites, if they are truly not worthy of being kept, their articles will go to eventually. No hurry, but consistency is not required, and taking our time has benefits. GRBerry 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Properly closed, did not assert notability. -M^ask 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. No evidence of notability, and the fact of an article not being advertising is not sufficient grounds to keep it when there is clearly not enough reliable external coverage to ensure neutrality. Just zis Guy you know? 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. Robertsteadman 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)

If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. Xoloz 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. Robertsteadman 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law as it applies today to items published today. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime. All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article. The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its copyright had already lapsed under the old law. It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Wikipedia is a violating the law. Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum. Prior to 1923, all published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law. Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer User:Brad Patrick. He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law. I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Wikipedia is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. Xoloz 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.

• Endorse closure. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not. I am compelled to wonder once again if User:Robertsteadman and User:Robsteadman are related. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Saryn Hooks

Article was AfD'd today, and deleted speedily per A7 after only three votes. Article certainly asserts notability, and frankly, I would have voted Keep.

Content was, more or less, "Saryn Hooks, of Taylorsville,North Carolina, placed third in the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee. She was reinstated after the judges realized they had the incorrect spelling of hechsher. She is fourteen years old and hopes to become a doctor."

Recommend undeletion and relisting at AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain for the moment. Coming third in a spelling bee is certainly not an impressive claim of notability. The judges got her word wrong? Woop de do, I don't think that'll be up there with the Mano de Dios in the Top 100 Shocking Sporting Moments on Channel 4. However, I'm not quite prepared to say that this should be snowballed, hence the abstention. It wouldn't have killed anyone to let this run its course. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Couldn't this detail simply be merged into the article for the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee as a bit of interesting trivia? --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's not very interesting? If it had affected the outcome of the game it would be important, but the girl went out anyway. Looking at the article, I don't see anywhere obvious to insert a mention, and it seems like a very inconsequential thing to start a new '==Trvia==' section with. But if you can do better than I, you don't have to wait for the article to be undeleted to edit the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically, any subject could be merged into another article as a short blurb rather than a real article, but that doesn't really do us justice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and complete AFD The reinstatement is also an assertion of notability. How often does a reinstatement occur? Without knowing this, which only an AFD discussion can address, we can't tell if there is notability. GRBerry 15:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why go to lengths - participation and high placement themselves are assertions of notability! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, reopen AFD A claim of notability necessitates an AFD. --Rob 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, certainly not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not fair for me to vote since I deleted it, but I just wanted to say that this met speedy deletion criteria in my view. I am not opposed to letting the AFD run its course if that is the outcome of this review.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per nom. BoojiBoy 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per nominator. Silensor 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Reviewing the articles on some of the winners of this competition, they would be far better combined a single article (and this one with them). Unless and until they achieve some lasting notability, an article which says that X attended foo school, won a spelling bee one year, and since then has not been mentioned in any reliable sources, would be a clear and unambiguous delete for any adult. I can't believe we're even considering keeping an article on someone whose sole claim to fame is that they came third. Come on, people! The reliable sources contain maybe two facts: the competition and the school. Just zis Guy you know? 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

12 June 2006

User:Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF and User:Winhunter/Userboxes/No-CCP

This user is opposed to online censorship.

This user opposes the Chinese Communist Party.

Both userboxes are in the userspace according to the German Userbox solution, but an admin deleted both of them, saying "T1 deletion as per CSD and Tony Sidaway arbcom case." in the deletion log. I do not believe speedy deletion would apply on userboxes in userspace in these two uesrboxes, especially when there are consensus on German Userbox Solution. --WinHunter^(talk) 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list at MfD - I think these userboxes must necessarily be deleted at MfD, but I think that, in this case, it's worth it to go back and list them there. Other opponents of userboxes, please consider my reasons. (I'm the same one who's argued passionately against not digging up the dead to rebury them.) We have a choice right now: we may start another userbox brouhaha, or not. Let's choose not to. Let's be smart about it this time, and do what Jimbo actually suggested. Once the boxes are in userspace, let's use reason and dialogue to explain why they're a bad idea. Let's do that by taking them to MfD for deletion instead of speedying them, and creating the conditions for much more congenial discussion, where explanation and development of reasons can actually go on in more cooperative spirit. Let's not ruffle feathers with speedy deletions, and then try to have that same conversation at DRV, where it's much more difficult on account of people being upset, and the constant drive to not talk about the content being deleted, but the validity of the deletion instead. This is a crappy place for the conversation to happen. We're not required to speedy polemical pages in user-space. We are free to apply the "if it walks like a template" criterion, or not. Please consider that we can do this encyclopedia a greater service by being a little more slow and deliberate about dealing with the userbox problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at MfD - I dislike these 2 boxes but am convinced by GTBacchus' points. Kimchi.sg 03:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, and send to MfD Case 1: EFF box. It is anything but obvious that this is inflammatory. It is anything but obvious that this is divisive. Heck, Wikipedia, by policy, is not censored. If there is anyplace that this should not be divisive, it is Wikipedia. This one looks like a clearly erroneous speedy deletion, and possibly should just be overturned without sending it to MfD, as I think a keep outcome is the appropriate MfD result. Case 2: Opposes CCP box. Better addressed on MfD than via a speedy deletion, as per GTBachus' argument above. The inflammatory case is debatable, given that the CCP already attempts to ban the citizens of mainland China from seeing Wikipedia, and that those who circumvent the firewall are unlikely to be the CCP's strongest supporters. GRBerry 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• I do not believe endless TFDs, MFDs, and DRVs are the correct way to resolve this issue. I think it's time to try the final step in dispute resolution. --Cyde↔Weys 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Which is...? If it's "take it to someone who can set binding policy", I agree with you. Jay Maynard 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• ArbCom is the final step of dispute resolution. --Cyde↔Weys 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted These fall under T1. T1 applies to userspace templates still. Would it be better to delete these through TFD or MFD? I believe so, but they have shown that they do not produce correct results w.r.t. to policy. Process is only important if it works. Kotepho 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not democracy. Why are MfDs closed against policy just because the numbers say so? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't know. Why are Gay Nigger Association of America and The Game (game) still around? Their sources are certainly scant.

  I do want to echo your request that userboxes in User: should be taken to *FD instead of speedied in most cases, but the debates need to be closed on their merits instead of numbers. That is not to say that all templates in user space should be taken to *FD--as many are fine in user space--but there are still templates that are so odious that they must be deleted from user space also. I believe that "user against $POLITICAL_PARTY" falls under such a condition, even if I happen to agree with that position. The EFF box is a bit different--enough that it probably should be discussed seperately. "This user supports the EFF" is something that I believe is inappropriate, but not so much that it needs to be deleted immediately. In its current form I believe that T1 is applicable. Kotepho 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  It is in userspace, what do you think about this? Jimbo on Userboxes --WinHunter ^(talk) 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else. - Jimbo Wales I like it a lot. I would add this bit though. I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.[24] On "it is in userspace": I have no idea what you are replying to, as no one disputes that. Kotepho 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I am reasonably certain that Winhunter was referring to this quote: [25] (too long to copy). It is, after all, the one he linked to. —Mira 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  This one [26] too, actually. —Mira 08:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes... from the first diff, and I already quoted from the second diff? The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results. Personally, I'm not a big fan of people using their user pages (or editing the encyclopedia) to advocate their points of view (and Jimbo agrees). How are these boxes anything other than that? Notice how Jimbo doesn't say "Oh I think that is fine", he says "this might work for now, but try and talk some sense into them". Talking hasn't worked; and most of these comment are from months ago. On the issue of substed versus transcluded in userspace, it is not a distinction without a difference. Kotepho 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I haven't seen talking given much of a chance to work. I've seen people try to bypass talking, by just deleting a bunch of boxes repeatedly, and creating conditions for people to feel they're being attacked. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at MFD agree with GTBacchus. The speedy deletion of userboxes has been far more divisive than any userbox could ever be. —Mira 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete Nothing wrong with either these userboxes or WP:GUS. jgp 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete User space is sacred territory!  Grue  07:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. First one is merely unnecessary, second is a childish attempt to piss off the editors you're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia with. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Question. How is the second one going to piss anyone off? Wikipedia is banned where anyone would actually support the Chinese communist party, because of the chinese communist party. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Userspace is not sacred, and must follow policy like anywhere else. --Improv 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Userspace is absolutely fine for userboxes. I don't use them, but I had asked Tony Sidaway about them at User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Random_Userbox_question. He seemed to think they were OK in the userspace, and I disagree that a T1 CSD criterion can apply to the userspace. Because if we can apply other CSD criterion to the user space, then we should delete a crapload of nn-bios and nonsense right now. - Hahnchen 08:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it looks like a duck, and transcludes like a duck, and quacks "Hey you! Your government and your political opinions are evil! By the way, would you like to write an encyclopaedia with me?" like a duck, it's probably a duck and therefore subject to criterion for speedy roasting T1. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are these boxes being treated differently to anything else on the user page? Are we no longer allowed to write down out beliefs on our userpage? If I write on my userpage "Evolution is fact", it's OK? But if I put it into a box, it's crossing some kind of line? If so, I seriously suggest we start at User:SPUI and work on from there. - Hahnchen 09:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I have no problems with people wrting down their beliefs on their userpage within reason, I do have a problem with encouraging others to write down the same beliefs by handing out bumper stickers. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  If you know of any recreated deleted articles being used in userspace as they would be in article space (i.e. inside article categories and/or linked from article space) please remove such links/cats, tag it g4, or bring it to mfd. Kotepho 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Naturally, categorisation or crosslinking from the mainspace to the userspace should not be allowed. I myself have made this error when working on new articles in my userspace. However, the relevance to this conversation seems very little. Many times I have seen 'Userfy' used in deletion discussions, so recreations in the userspace aren't entirely g4 material. - Hahnchen 09:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Of course it does not apply to all templates, but ones that are divisive and inflammatory are fair game even in user space. Examples of such happening would be User Anti-UN and User Anti-ACLU. How is No-CCP significantly different? Kotepho 10:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. POV userboxes but in userspace, which is what the German solution calls for. We have generally granted wide latitude in that area, including clear biases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The whole idea of WP:TGS is to take forward Jimbo's endorsement of how userboxes are handled on the German Wikipedia. He has said that POV should be allowed in user space far beyond what is allowed in template space. Also, I'm strongly against extending T1 to user space. Show me the policy discussion covering that interpretation, please. --StuffOfInterest 10:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If I may quote Jimbo's suggestion regarding the failed UPP proposal: "The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive." CharonX/talk 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The stated reason that a user-page comment to the effect of, 'I hate people with mauve skin' inside a rectangle has not been allowed while 'I hate people with mauve skin' outside a rectangle has been allowed was that the 'rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'Template space' and might therefor theoretically be taken to imply that Wikimedia encourages or tolerates the hating of people with mauve skin... while the 'not in a rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'User space' wherein it is more clearly the statement of the individual user(s). Ergo, if a disputed viewpoint resides entirely in user space it does not fall under the stated reason for removal of such from template space... whether it is enclosed in a rectangle or not. Does that make the hating of mauve people a good thing which we should encourage? Of course not, but to date we haven't taken the position that we can (or should) police the content of all userpages to remove any disputed viewpoints. If someone writes on their user page, 'I am gay and have been married to my partner for three years now' we do not remove it on the grounds that 'gay marriage is divisive' yet now some are saying that we should. If people really want to broaden this to a discussion of sanitizing the user space (not just template space) of all disputed beliefs then they need to make a case for that... but until then there are no grounds to do so for bits and pieces of user space - whether they are enclosed in rectangles or not. There have been decisions against the use of the template namespace for disputed viewpoints... not the use of rectangles. --CBDunkerson 11:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one is saying that you cannot use rectangles; they are saying you cannot use templates. The definition of a template is not "stuff in Template:". See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Kotepho 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  See the quote from Jimbo that CharonX included above...he seems to disagree specifically with your argument. Jay Maynard 12:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree. You are apparently defining 'template' as 'anything which is transcluded'. That is not stated in the arbcom case you cite and is not consistent with Jimbo's statements about why T1 was created and what kinds of transclusion are acceptable:

  "Suppose we omit the bit about [disallowing] user subpages transcluded without substitution? If we do that, then a certain amount of userboxing can go on no problem, but outside the officially sanctioned spaces. This respects our long tradition of allowing wide latitude on userspace stuff, while at the same time keeping these userboxes out of officially sanctioned areas which would suggest to new users that this is an official thing that one ought to be doing. There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes, of course, but this is not different from the restriction on all manner of things people might put on their userpages already."

  The T1 criteria was created to address Jimbo's concerns (and those of others) about templates (by which I mean 'things in the template namespace') possibly giving the impression that a view was supported by Wikimedia. Above Jimbo makes a clear distinction that transcluded pages from the template and other 'official' namespaces need to be kept free of divisive statements, but transcluded user pages should be treated like any other user page content - where we have long allowed much wider lattitude since they do not reflect on Wikimedia. --CBDunkerson 12:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  What is not clear about "...or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner..." (Principle 2)? Is this not a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner? Deleted, check; userfied, check; used on pages other than those of it's owner, check.

  Also--amazingly enough--everything Jimbo says on a random talk page is not ex cathedra; there is a difference between Jimbo's opinion and Jimbo's decrees. Kotepho 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Lots of stuff Jimbo has said on random talk pages is being taken ex cathedra. If the statements that he's made that the anti-userbox faction likes count, so do the statements the anti-userbox faction doesn't like. Jay Maynard 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Are you saying that users are responsible for transclusions by others of their subpages? --SPUI (T - C) 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  When we reach the point that the T1 CSD is re-written to directly contradict the person who is directly responsible for its existence there is a problem. T1 was implemented spontaneously, without any normal approval process, to fill a need specified by Jimbo. Re-interpreting T1 to directly contradict Jimbo's position on this issue would invalidate it's entire basis for existence. As to the ArbCom principle you cite (I was looking for a definition of 'template' consistent with yours)... it deals with attempts to circumvent deletion of unacceptable content by relocating it. It does not address the different standards between what is acceptable in the template namespace and what is acceptable in the user namespace. If something was deleted because it is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia then moving it to the user space is no improvement, but if something was deleted because it was unacceptable in the template namespace (the meaning of T1 actually espoused by the person responsible for its existence), but would be acceptable in the user space, then I don't see a problem with its recreation. Just as the 'non notable bio' CSD applies to 'article' space, but not to 'user' space so to with the T1 CSD in template vs user space. The entire basis of T1's existence, possible implication of Wikimedia support, simply does not apply to the user space. --CBDunkerson 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I swear, when you think you've found a solution to a problem, another problem crops up. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what solution are you referring to? Most other editors here are citing WP:GUS. --StuffOfInterest 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and do not list at xfD. The German userbox solution is a compromise designed to end the userbox wars. Speedy deleting userboxes in userspace shows contempt for that compromise, and spits in the face of those who worked hard to make it reality. If the same criteria apply to userboxes in userspace as apply to userboxes in template space, then there is no compromise at all, and the wars, and the exodus, will go on. Jay Maynard 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is disappointing that we may lose a few good editors, but by and large people who would leave wikipedia over this are people who have the wrong idea about Wikipedia and see their userpage as another livejournal. --Improv 13:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please trim that broad brush. You have no way of knowing that, and the accusation, while not as insulting as saying those who believe userboxes are valuable want to turn Wilipedia into MySpace, is nevertheless quite wide of the mark. The reason people would leave Wikipedia over this is not only the inability to say who one is, but also - and perhaps even more so - that speedy deletions in the face of an ongoing attempt to reach a genuine compromise say that those in power simply do not care what those not in power think. That attitude is far more corrosive than any userbox can be, and, from what I'm seeing, far more pervasive. Jay Maynard 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You hit the nail on the head. When legitimate attempts at compromise are responded to with hard-line stonewalling, you know something is fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia's culture. jgp 13:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The difficulty is that compromise is not possible (or even desirable) in every case. For example, vandals want unlimited vandaism, wikipedia wants none, so it would be pointless to compromise and allow some vandalism. The base issue in this is that some see these boxes as an example of what wikipedia is not, and as such not a valid case for compromise, as what wikipedia is, and is not, is fundamental, not only to its culture, but to wikipedia itself. MartinRe 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Now you're just implying that userboxes are vandalism which is grossly off base and quite insulting. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
            • No, I am implying no such thing. I am simply pointing out that "compromise" is not always a magic word. If you have people that believe (rightly or wrongly) that the opposing view has no merit, then the middle ground will seem equally flawed. If one person thinks 2+2=4 and another says that 2+2=6, a suggested compromise to agree that 2+2=5 would also be rejected, but might be seen as stonewalling. And no, I am not saying any opinion is as right as "2+2=4", but am just pointing out possible reasons why what appears to be a compromise to one person, may appear not to be one to someone else. (and I have seen signs of this on all sides of this debate) Regards, MartinRe 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, as it has always been standard to make and transclude user subpages. --SPUI (T - C) 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no basis for deletion per the German Solution. Also they are most definitely not T1. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy them to my userpage UBX directory (UBX), which is open to all (non-personal attack/reality-compatible) userboxes. If anyone deletes it there, I will undelete it. Simple. TGS will be implemented, by community consensus. Xoloz 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, I got this idea from User:Cyde Weys, no friend of userboxes, and he is helping me implement it, so I'd say it has some sort of "bipartisan support". Xoloz 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, Xoloz, look closely. These were already in user space. Also, if you just undelete them you'll end up being accused of wheel warring. --StuffOfInterest 19:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I know exactly what I said SOI (although I take no offense at your point :) The difference between Winhunter and me is that I can undelete myself, without process hoops. Anyone who wheel-warred with me over my own userspace would go to ArbCom with me, and not be looked on too brightly. If I must wheel-war and lose adminship... oh well. If it ends the userbox war, it is worth it. I trust, however, that my fellow admins would respect my userspace, even if they delete from other "normal users" (sic). If they don't, we'll get this settled. Xoloz 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I hate to say this, but regardless of how it gets there I'm starting to think that ArbCom is the right place to go. I had hoped that when WP:GUS came around, backed by Jimbo's own words, things would finally settle. It appears that this isn't the case and higher level policy may be needed. --StuffOfInterest 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to see fewer user boxes, and I don't care where they are stored. The German system doesn't answer the fundamental question: What is Wikipedia?

Some user boxes are clearly deleted under T1 when they are not inflammatory. The emotional attachment which people show to a particular userbox when it is deleted can indicate whether it is inflammatory, and some raise no hackles. I wouldn't personally delete marginal userboxes until a new policy gains consensus. And people wheel warring over this issue just demonstrates they are too involved to have a dispassionate opinion. What we need in the short term is a simple and non-time consuming way to determine which boxes should be kept and which deleted while policy is worked out.

I suggest a panel of five people representing differing shades of opinion, with a process that means some are deleted and some are kept. Then everyone else can get on with more productive things. It's silly to have so many people involved when at the end of the day, they'll either all be deleted or all be recreated. Stephen B Streater 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Does a userbox having people with emotional attachment automatically make them inflammatory? What about the organ donor one? That had lots of emotional attachment, but it is almost completely inconceivable that it is inflammatory. (I just renewed my driver's license today, and made sure to check the box for organ donation, in part because this issue reminded me of it.)

It makes no sense to do anything with userboxes until policy is worked out. All deleting some does is inflame the situation and make it look like those doing the deleting are trying to get their licks in before they're told not to. That's the fundamental argument here: an admin took it upon himself to act while policy is still in flux, and the consensus appears to be that that is objectionable. Your panel would be even more so. Jay Maynard 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A panel might not be a bad idea, but I'd be shocked if anything becomes a policy on userboxes without just being done for a while first. I'd suggest that whomever forms such a panel look for 1) regular participation (no use having someone who drops out for months at a time), 2) demonstrated ability to be educational in discussing the topic, and for at least most of the panel members 3) demonstrated nuanced decisionmaking - no use having a panel of people whose opinions are predictable before they even see the userbox, as that would defeat the reason for forming a panel. I don't think this could become policy, but if a few people formed a panel that would chime in when requested, and that panel met Stephen B Streater's and my criteria, it could help and could even be a good enhancement to WP:GUS. I'm going to boldly take the suggestion, Jay's and my comments over to the talk page for that. So please follow up on this idea at it's talk page. GRBerry 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Policy Consulting

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Policy Consulting

The article about Strategic Policy Consulting was recently deleted and protected against re-creation, along with its associated redirects. This article is referred to in the frequently vandalised article about Alireza Jafarzadeh. Strategic Policy Consulting is relevant to a current event, the Iran and weapons of mass destruction issue. The company, through its links with the Mujahedeen-e_Khalq, is the primary US source of intelligence about Iran at present. The advice it provides may lead to US military action against Iran, thereby changing the course of history in the near future. A Wikipedia article about this company may be referred to by key decision makers throughout the world as they weigh the value of the advice it provides. With this in mind I would like to suggest the article be re-created so that it can be expanded and linked appropriately. --Dave 08:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the value of the article, I have to say that "A Wikipedia article about this company may be referred to by key decision makers throughout the world as they weigh the value of the advice it provides" is the scariest thing I'm likely to read today. Are you serious? · rodii · 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment was the article deleted by speedy or via AfD? And yes, the idea of the government consulting wikipedia is very frightening. --tjstrf 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Policy Consulting. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Dave probably means that key decision markers will be consulting the subject of the article, not the article itself. If it is the "primary US source of intelligence about Iran", that sounds like a claim of notability not considered by the original AfD that would be worth a re-examination. Is there a third-party source to support this claim? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not how I read it. Not that it's a big deal, but I read it as saying "key decisions maker will turn to the Wikipedia article for background on this company when they decide how much weight to give the company's intelligence." And that seems wrong to me. At the very least, we should be careful not to give credence to any claims about the company unless they meet a pretty high standard of verification. But I think that takes us out of deletion review territory. I agree with what you say about re-examining the evidence. · rodii · 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect/undelete. The article was deleted as an advertisement, but only 4 users even commented on the deletion. A rewritten form should be acceptable and it has a seemingly good claim to notability based on its owner. --tjstrf 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, but don't object to a rewrite if notability can be established. Just because only four people commented does not make this an invalid deletion. Discuss process. Please note that Googling '"Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc." -wikipedia' only brings up 55 hits, and the first five of those are various websites created by the company. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: I was the person who originally put this article up for AfD, way back just over a year ago. At the time, the article contained nothing to establish notability. One of the phrases from the article prior to that deletion: "there is a new power house in foreign policy namely Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc." The article read like spam, and I feel was deleted appropriately. The four versions that have been speedy deleted since the AfD deletion have contained less content than the first entry, with the content being less spam like but containing nothing to assert notability. That Alireza Jafarzadeh is the company's president is not in my opinion sufficient to make the company itself notable, as what minimal content has been included in the five deleted versions of the article could very easily be merged into the Alireza Jafarzadeh article. There is a claim above that this company is the primary source of intelligence on Iran for the United States. If that is true, then that is certainly enough claim to notability for an article. However, the claim at this point is uncited. I invite the person who made this deletion review request to create a proposed article at Strategic Policy Consulting/Temp, complete with citations and references substantiating this group's notability. This will give us an opportunity to fairly evaluate if there really is a claim to notability here or if the content should be included in the Alireza Jafarzadeh article, with perhaps a redirect from the subject article. --Durin 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletions as recreated content. Allow a rewrite in the Temp space citing independent third-party sources and demonstrating how this company meets the criteria of WP:CORP. I note that this page was rewritten during the AFD discussion by user:12.38.30.1, an IP address whose registration traces back to the same street address as this company. It was reposted word-for-word by that same IP and by two other IPs, leading me to believe that this is a single insider posting about his/her company. If you think you or your company might be important enough for an article, it's always a good idea to wait and let someone else write it. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: In reviewing the contribution history of the anon IP user, every edit made to other articles has apparently either been deleted or reverted as vandalism. That does seem to make it harder to assume good faith in this particular case. Rossami (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted stub article which made absolutely no claim to encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

This article was previously nominated for deletion with a decision of non-consensus. I question that the article meets neutrality and verifiability conditions for wiki articles. The original article was submitted by a member of the chat site as a vanity piece. The author, Avi, goes by the same name here and on the chat site. He is listed on the web chat site as a site supporter, which he describes as people who contributed funds to sustain the site. Also, most of the article is not verifiable as to who visits, size or influence.Deletionary 03:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• User's 5 edits are all to a AfD or DRV. Kimchi.sg 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have reason to think that the judgement of non consensus is incorrect, and that really there WAS a consensus to delete but the admin missed it, the best thing to do is to wait an appropriate time, and relist the article. DRV is not for revisiting the deletion discussion itself (which it often is helpful to give a link to, though, by the way) but rather for discussing whether there's some reason that it needs to be overturned. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

11 June 2006

The Esplanade Mall

Sheesh - I had to hunt through my browser history to find this. It was deleted recently on VFD. I found it soon after in CAT:CSD tagged at a repost. When I found it, it already was not "just a lengthy list of stores that exist at a mall" as the originally-deleted article was. I cleaned it up and completely rewrote it; the article included information about it being closed due to Hurricane Katrina. And yet it was still deleted as a repost. --SPUI (T - C) 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I was the admin who last deleted this article (it had been deleted as a repost once before). Although the content had been slightly rewritten it was fundamentally the same article. I believe that there may have been some confusion here, because the original article also contained a list of stores (but not only a list of stores - as a comment on the AfD indicated). Please let me know if you want me to retrieve the actual contents. Cheers TigerShark 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  I remember rewriting it - the grammar was horrible. Also, one of the "votes" reads:

  Even the cleaned-up version (of Clearview Mall) is simply a list of stores. If the article were to contain additional information, such as history of the mall, significant stores that have come and gone, significant events held at the mall, etc. I'd say keep.

  Given that the article as rewritten included some history, either Rehcsif didn't bother to read the article, or the article as rewritten was not the one on VFD. --SPUI (T - C) 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. The article as it stood at the time when the AfD was closed and the article deleted was substantially similar to the most recent version, the main difference being that the most recent version was better written and some cruft had been jettisoned (which did not affect the rationale for deletion - non-notability). A mention of the mall being affected by Hurricane Katrina was inserted into the article only an hour after the AfD began, and didn't sway any editors. And is that really the most interesting thing to say about this shopping centre? Certainly Hurricane Katrina damaged loads of places and doesn't confer notability by association. Unless there's something verified about it that hasn't been brought up yet worth putting in an encyclopaedia, keep deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If "votes" that concur with deletion of the present article due to its problems are to be taken as "votes" against any future article on the topic, I will be sure to "vote" to keep any article about a shopping mall, no matter how shitty the writing is. On the one hand, people say to "vote" on how the current article is, not on what it could be, but then (presumably) others delete any new article as a re-creation. --SPUI (T - C) 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. For any mall, it is worth describing its role as a transit hub, if this is the case. TruthbringerToronto 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD per TruthbringerToronto. (I tagged the latest recreation of the article, which SPUI removed.) Let's see if SPUI (and others?) can expand the article enough. Kimchi.sg 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Relist might as well see the contents and judge based on those, it sounds like it might be an expandable subject. --tjstrf 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We already did that, and so far no new content has been presented to judge since the AfD closed 3 days ago. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It was listed alongside Clearview Mall, and both received an overwhelming proportion of delete votes, including comments like "malls are not inheirantly notable" and "malls are generally not notable." and "I appreciate the idea and effort, but articles on the malls of towns falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to use one of my rare free moments to make a quick comment about this article. I originally listed the article for AfD when it was a list of malls, I would still place in AfD after seeing the recreated article. This mall wasn't the only thing that was hit by Hurricane Katrina, many more things were devasted by it. For instance, homes, roads, a large stadium, people's lives. By placing an article on a mall and stating that it's notable because it closed due to a large Hurricane, is making a mockery of people's lives and of the purpose of Wikipedia. Nothing notable happened in this mall to make it noteworthy, and the closing of a mall due to a hurricane (which is what the mall is SUPOSED to do, so that makes it norm), is not anywhere near the quality that Wikipedia needs to maintain. Yanksox 11:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. I reviewed a number of the deleted versions of this article both before and after the deletion decision. I do not consider them sufficiently different to have addressed the core concerns raised during the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete as an improper speedy deletion. Silensor 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Ling

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

• Shame about Mailer leaving; it does mean we can't ask him to explain himself. This seems a borderline case; I'd suggest overturning the close and relisting. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse closure. I think you are confusing the way these deletion debates are handled. Consensus is a higher standard than a mere supermajority. It means that we pay as much or more attention to the weight of arguments as we do to the weight of numbers. Reviewing the discussion, I make a vote-count of 16 "delete" to 7 "keep" (with one probable troll discounted). Had there been strong evidence, that could have been sufficient to interpret as the necessary "rough consensus" for deletion. In this case, however, the arguments focused on whether the person is notable enough to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies and neither side of this debate presented strong evidence either way. Furthermore, many of the participants explicitly qualified their opinions as "weak" (5 of the "keeps" were phrased as "weak keep" and 2 of the "deletes" were "weak delete"). Closing this discussion as "no consensus" seems to me to be well within the reasonable discretion of a closing admin.
  Note: a "no consensus" decision defaults to keep for now but does not prevent anyone from gathering stronger evidence and renominating it for deletion after a reasonable delay. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How, exactly, does one gain stronger evidence of non-notability? You cannot prove a negative, right? I understand that it is not merely a matter of votes, but I offered up what I could, and no one else had much to say. This may be because there wasn't much left to say - those for keeping didn't speak up to justify their votes, while those who voted to delete explained their specific rationale (re notability). Were they expected to expound on it for a full paragraph each? Clearly they felt the matter was a simple one and didn't feel the need to orate on it. While I respect that this isn't necessary what is sought after in an AfD, please let me know what else could have been done, if something wasn't handled well. Girolamo Savonarola 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To gain stronger evidence of non notability, search in more and different, yet still appropriate, places and present the negative results. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, Lar, surely the onus is on those claiming notability to prove that is the case, and not the other way round as it's based on WP:V, verifying that he's notable. (also see comment below) Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I was just directly answering the question asked. However, on a RE list, I think the lister has some responsibility to present new information, sufficient to justify why the previous result was unsatisfactory, or to show that things have changed in some way . That said, I agree with what you say below (and endorse the closure), because "the passage of time with no new notability proof" is a kind of "change in some way". ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure the afd focused on whether the subject was notable enough, and the opinion seemed to be borderline, verging on no, so "no consensus" seems a fair enough call on the afd. (if in doubt, don't delete, but not enough case for full keep) However, the notability claims need to be strengthened to remove that doubt, if this is not done, then it could be brought to afd again after a reasonable time, and if the arguements are similar, it will probably swing to delete, with the additional factor of no claims being found since the last afd weighing against the notability claim. Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Mailer diablo does not need to explain himself, the no consensus to delete is quite clear. Silensor 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Siberian language

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

• Comment Original deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian language. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - The current contents are indeed vastly different than the old, and it does seem perhaps a bit odd to delete as a recreate of a validly deleted article. That being said, the new content was incredibly poor, with bad spelling, links to livejournal, and many of the other markers of a poor article. I also wonder whether it's appropriate to call this a language -- by the article it sounds more like a description of a dialect (perhaps like calling a Boston accent a Boston language?). In sum, I don't know if there's any content worth keeping, and the title's probably misleading too. I'm open to lines of reasoning by other people on this one. --Improv 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The matter is just to construct a full language on the base of dialect --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you saying this is a project to build a language out of a dialect? Are you involved? How big is this? --Improv 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. Yes. 2. We have group of 81 persons who work at it - http://community.livejournal.com/learn_siberian/profile, but I am the leader of this group. 3. It has 15000 words in dictionary now http://volgota.com/govor/language/lj.doc.zip? online dictionary provided by ukrainian research group (NOT me, I can not program) http://totem.in.ua/sib/trans.php, it has rather wide literature of abouat 100 texts http://volgota.com/govor/, it has news service http://volgota.com/news/, so surely it is not OR --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Endorse Deletion - No disrespect is intended for you or your project, but this is too small and too new a project to be covered on Wikipedia, and this smacks of using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Maybe in a few years, this might be appropriate for an article, but as for right now, the article is too close to original research (I doubt there are independent studies of the language) and promo. --Improv 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Utter nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as the "Siberian language". --Timothy Usher 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • just see it at http://volgota.com - newspaper, books, site interface. Wiki has many articles about languages not so developed as Siberian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The language was developed from the time of last deletion, now it is very complicated, many texts translated and written, many people learning it, a big site launched, so it is not "non-notable" conlang now --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I absolutely agree with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. By the way, the site about siberian language and test wiki on siberian --Steel archer 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Both of these accounts were created to vote on Deletion Review. Not cool. --Improv 16:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You can see my history in UK and Yaroslav's (Anarch) history in RU Wikipedias. Why new users can't vote? --Steel archer 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. --Pjacobi 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, looking at the article, the VfD was as valid today as it was last year. --fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, elucidate your thought. --Steel archer 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable constructed language. There are no independent, neutral sources to confirm the existance of a specific "Siberian language" as described in the article. There are several languages spoken in Siberia, but this article does not adress any of them. --Ezeu 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The test wiki is not an independent reliable source. Much of it is written by some people participating here. --Ezeu 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Siberian language was prohibited in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. And now, most of people which are against this language are russian imperialists indeed. And this is a reason why it is rather difficult to find sources about siberian. There are no full literature siberian language: Yaroslav Zolotaryov just constructs it basing on many siberian dialects. So, you can hardly ever find people speak on ""literature"" siberian - only on its dialects. --Steel archer 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist to AfD: from my reading in linguistics I would expect it to be deleted there, but it would give non-admins the chance to debate the deletion on the merits of its content, especially as it doesn't seem to meet the recreated content CSD. --Aquilina 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - This page needs to be undeleted. The language has already been constructed. It is based on a local dialect, but its' origins are really beside the point. There is, for example, a wiki page for Talossan language, that has been constructed by a single person for a country completely invented by him, and whose "words and grammar are just made up at random". Surely Siberian has far better basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.29.135 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• The speedy-deleted version was significantly different from the deleted version. On that basis, I'm afraid that we must overturn the speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. However, I am deeply skeptical that the article will prevail during the deletion discussion. The prior deletion discussion was unanimous and included the opinion of the alleged author of this recently constructed language. None of the concerns raised in the prior deletion debate have been answered either in the redeleted article nor in this discussion so far. The wiki does not meet the required standards for a reliable source and the google test (168 unique hits) returns very little that appears relevant. Every hit I scanned used the phrase "Siberian language" in the casual sense of "a language used by a community indiginous to the geographic area of Siberia", not in the sense of a unified language. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can try the google test in russian language, and will see many sources about the siberian not from me or Volgota group. Being an artefact of local culture, it is simply not mentioned in the english-speaking audience --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Without sources that are functionally verifiable by the english-speaking participants of the English Wikipedia, that won't help much. Perhaps this would be more appropriate if transwiki'd to the Russian Wikipedia]? Rossami (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Better to the ukrainian article in http://ukr.wikipedia.org/wiki, because we believe it is more ibjective. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak overturn and relist per Aquilina. The version debated on VfD was a short stub, while the version deleted as G4 was fairly detailed. That said, I'd say the new version fails WP:OR pretty hard, and should be deleted or heavily shortened on that basis unless independent sources are provided. It's almost a WP:SNOW case, but I'm personally willing to give it its five days on AfD, just in case I'm proven wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Some independent sources http://dpni.org/forum/post48701.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Do you have any sources in English? The sources above may well substantiate the claims in the article for all I know, but I can't really tell since my grasp of Russian is almost nonexistent. Failing that, you might try to find a neutral established Wikipedian who understands Russian to review the sources — any volunteers? (In any case, this discussion belongs on AfD, should the article get relisted there, not here on DRV. If you wish to reply in length, please do so on my talk page or wait for the AfD listing.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist as different, where I will vote delete as this asserts the factual existence of this language, but no reliable sources have been produced to suggest that it is anything other than a conlang. Just zis Guy you know? 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Mikka, who speaks several comparable languages and is (unlike the average AfD voter) able to understand the supposed sources. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. original research. No independent information from anywhere but fans' writings provided. (forums are not allowed as sources for wikipedia) `'mikka (t) 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: this is nót about the question whether it is a good article or not. If there's something wrong with an article, it should be improved. Perhaps the English wasn't perfect indeed, and perhaps there was a link to a blog or something, but I think this article was still a lot better than the average stub. That kind of things can be fixed easily without deleting an article. Neither is this about the question whether constructed languages in general should be in Wikipedia or not. Nor about the question whether this article was original research. This is about the way it was deleted! Every time when a conlang is listed for deletion, they say: at present this language is not notable enough, but when that has changed, by all means create an article about it. Now, I think there are reasons to assume that that is indeed the case here. I can see many reasons why the language is notable enough. But even if I'm wrong, the merits of Siberian should be discussed properly in an AfD discussion, but definitely not here. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Surely, the article can be changed, my english is poor, and my view to the language is definitely non-neutral, so if would be better article, it would be fine --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:NOR. It's just another LiveJournal flashmob. MaxSem 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's exactly the point. That might have been true one year ago, it definitely isn't true anymore. But again, let's not start discussing the article itself, but the way it has been deleted. At present, no one can even read what the discussion is about. I think the least it deserves is a proper AfD discussion, pending which every participant in the discussion can read the article. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've temporarily undeleted the history for the duration of this DRV discussion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme speedy keep deleted. OR, an attempt at advertising an nn conlang, nothing has changed to make this more notable than the first decision to delete. We're not here to reargue the AfD, but to discuss whether or not the original deletion was appropriate. It was, it still is. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but this is not about the question whether the original deletion was appropriate. It no doubt was. If little Pete writes an article about his hobbies, then it will be deleted. But if he's suddenly elected president of the USA, does that mean there can't be an article about him because there has already been a valid VfD? What bothers me is this: once an article has survived an AfD, it can be relisted for deletion again, and again, and again, until the deletionists get their way. But once an article has been deleted, there is no way go get it back, even if things may have changed. I think that's bad, very bad! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: out of curiosity I looked into the website of the "language". After reading the "translation" of Pushkin quoted below I am more inclined to believe this is a practical joke rather than a serious attempt to revive a supposedly extinct "Siberian" dialect of Russian. Native Russian speakers, prepare for a good laugh:

  Мой дедя шыбко чесных веров,

  Кода-от шыбко захворал,

  Людям дык всю дыхню зашкерил,

  В горбыль всех просто зайобал.

  And there is more of this.`'mikka (t) 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • But such were dialetical expressions of the same meaning which is in Pushkin verse, and you laugh simply for diregarding the folk speech --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, Eugene Onegin in hillbilly... ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Tread carefully the fine line between humour and mockery. --Ezeu 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • No mockery of Pushkin there, Pushkin himself liked dialects, used them, if he were alive now, he perhaps voted for siberian here. His poem "Ruslan and Ludmila" was also regarded as mockery just for using dialectical words and common people's relation to the topic of this poem. So in fact, our group continues Pushkin's work, but conservators are against him --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. Just like "bad spelling", "links to livejournal", "too small and too new a project", "no such thing as the Siberian language", "no reliable sources", "promotion" and "original research" are irrelevant here. Again, this discussion should not be about the language itself. We have AfD discussions for that. This discussion is about the question whether an article that has been deleted in the remote past can or cannot be recreated. The admin in question has unilaterally deleted the article and locked the page, and thát is the decision I'm questioning here. People's personal tastes have no place in such discussion. For the record, I don't have a clear opinion on the matter. I'm in no way connected to the creators of the language. What I can tell as one of Wikipedia's self-proclaimed resident conlang experts, is that a lot seems to have changed since the last AfD. If the language has indeed a group of 80 active users, and if there is some press coverage, then it just might qualify for an article. Besides, we have this discussion about a wikipedia in the language going on. Personally, I don't believe this is a hoax. But like I said, that kind of arguments belong in an AfD discussion, not here. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This was not an argument. This was a comment that started this thread. This zolotarev guy extended his hobby joke as to suggest a siberian language wikipedia. How do you imagine wikipedia in hillbilly. This alone says something about this project. As for 80 active users: how do you know that? Somehow I don't believe Zolotaryov. The basic argument against undeletion is wikipedia:Verifiability. The "some" press coverage seen is not a reliable source, it is still word of language creator's mouth, not of an independent linguistics expert. In other words, the major objection voiced during deletion is not addressed by the new version. Article size doesn't matter. `'mikka (t) 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • A hundred years ago Ukrainian was also considered "hillbilly Russian" by the czarist government. In other words, thát argument doesn't really hold stake. As for your point regarding verifiability: I tend to agree with you here. I'd love to see some samples of real press coverage, because thát is IMO what makes the difference. I don't know whether to believe Mr. Zolotaryov or not. The whole discussion evokes quite strong reminiscences of High Icelandic. If you haven't seen it, I'd say it's worth to take a look at the AfD discussion there. My whole point is only that I think the subject deserves proper discussion, and this is not the place for it. In a normal AfD discussion I certainly wouldn't have voted "keep" without convincing arguments. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 22:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • But it should be defined, what argument are relevant in the english wiki. If it will be defined with certainity, I shall find them. "There is no such language at all" surely is not an argument. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted this nonsense, please. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. AfD had six deletes, no keeps. No suggestion of any voting irregularities or debatable sysop judgement. I note too that the article has no real references; the fact that one of the external links is described as "Volgota, the main promo site" strongly suggests that the purpose of the article is not to synthesize published factual material into an encyclopedia article, but to promote a project. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite so. Nobody is arguing that the AfD was invalid. But for heaven's sake, that was over a year ago! A lot can change in the meantime. If Yaroslav can somehow substantiate his claims about the number of speakers, and provide some verifiable info regarding press coverage, then I can't see why the article wouldn't deserve a second chance. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • In what way can I substantiate it? What info about the press is verifiable? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to believe that this Yaroslav fellow (among others) has any existence beyond that of a sockpuppet created to vote in this deletion review..Timothy Usher 05:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • But I do! User's first contribution was dated 10 June, 18:49 (UTC). This deletion review was dated 11 June, 9:32 (UTC). So tell me: how can this account have been created with the sole purpose of voting here, if there wasn't any vote yet? I think it's always better to assume good faith! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 07:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nn and ue. Also, there seems to be a campaign to start a separate Wikipedia in this language. What's next Klingon and Elvish Wikipedias? --Irpen 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There used to be a wikipedia in Klingon, but it has been closed down. An Elvish wikipedia has been proposed, but I don't think there's enough support for it. BTW, I'm not thát frequent a guest here; what does "ue" mean? —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Those must have been shut down for a reason. ue=unencyclopedic, nn=non-notable. --Irpen 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nonsense. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

10 June 2006

Template:Major_programming_languages

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

• Note: Original TFD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_25#Template:Major_programming_languages — xaosflux ^Talk 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I would have closed this TfD the same way IceKarma did. Unless Lulu's opinion would have brought with it a fantastic new argument, I doubt including his "vote" amongst the others would have tipped the balance, either. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  No,I wouldn't have had any fantastic argument that was much different from other voters. I just think that a supermajority (i.e. 75-80%, or at the least 66%) should be required for deletion, rather than just a majority (absent evidence of sockpuppetry, or clearly more experienced editors on one side of a vote, or other special circumstance... none of which existed here). 11/7 is pretty much the same thing as 11/6 in this regard. LotLE×talk 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well, *fD's being not a vote is more than just discounting inexperience or sockpuppetry. It also means that an overwhelming majority is not required for consensus to exist. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm generally in favor of keeping articles over deleting them (as long as they're maintainable and verifiable), but it seems clear from the discussion that maintaining the template was plain infeasible, by consensus. I also note that there was no prejudice against creating a new, more maintainable template. Powers 18:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  When did I mention the tally? When closing AfDs, MfDs, RfDs, and the occasional (during the long dark teatime of the soul) TfD, I make a point of never counting the number of "votes". Knowledge of the raw numbers will shed no light on the appropriate course of action, and is thus unnecessary and occasionally even obfuscatory. Bugger the tally. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lulu: Tfd is not a vote! Don't count comments like it was one. --Cyde↔Weys 03:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik Möller

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

• there are also two previous versions of Erik Möller that have been deleted previously, the first was a redirect and the second was very short. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• There are about 4,000 copies of my book. It's a niche publication about wikis, weblogs and open source software. I don't think having written a single book with such a small run makes me a notable person.--Eloquence* 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, hasn't sold over 5,000 copies of his book, also doesn't meet "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" of WP:BIO. --Rory096 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To be accurate, there have been numerous reviews in newspapers, magazines and radio; I get a regular sample of those from my publisher. But again, the print run is fairly small, and a bit of media attention is to be expected given the topics covered.--Eloquence* 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Do we really need a Wikipedia article for every Wikipedian, even the more famous ones? What's next, an article for me? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Margana found it nessecary to prove her point by creating that article in violation of WP:POINT. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The subject of the page nominated the page for deletion with the reason "Non-notable, wikicruft." The editor in question is a very experienced and highly respected editor with a deep understanding of our policies, standards and traditions. If even he argues to delete the page, we should trust his judgment. Incidentally, my own reading of our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies confirms that decision. One niche publication is not generally considered sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if Erik Möller says he's not notable, I believe him. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Only claim to significance outside of Wikipedia is being a published author... of a book with ~4,000 printed copies. The deletion of this article is perfectly valid.--SB | T 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Just zis Guy. AnnH ♫ 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
  • user's third edit to Wikipedia
  • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• 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" [27] - 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. [28]
  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 [29] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [30]
  5. MSN [31] and Yahoo [32] 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: [33]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Thanks, Kimchi. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Kimchi. Normally, deletion review is not a re-vote on the merits of the arguments advanced in AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 12 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)

• Note from User:Netscott: Despite what the nominator has said, the actual reasoning for speedy deletion of this policy proposal was general criteria for speedy deletion #5, "Pages created by banned users while they were banned.". This policy proposal was created by the banned editor Resid Gulerdem. While User:Raphael1 did make some perfunctory changes to the WP:OURS proposal that Resid Gulerdem created, his putting it online was sooner a proxy act for Gulerdem. Due to these facts alone this deletion review appears prima facie unqualified to even continue and I would recommend to the first admin reading this to close it accordingly. Netscott 13:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? You have chosen to leave a rude, snotty message on my talk page as well. Sceptre made a mistake, that's all. I should not have gone to any particular length to point up this fact; it's enough to correct it. We all make mistakes but they can be fixed.

There is no speedy criterion for pages created by proxy; that is an invention. Further, I detest your use of legalese to insist that again process be circumvented. Please get off your high horse and let us express our community will. John Reid 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting if somewhat agressive/inappropriate response to my rather polite talk page message. User:Sceptre made no mistake in speedy deleting this banned user's policy proposal creation. As submittor of this policy proposal for MfD I would have opted for speedy deletion (as it rightly was) had I properly thought through the proxy nature of it's creation on Wikipedia relative to speedy deletion general criteria #5. As it was I admit that I wasn't clear about that. Netscott 21:04, 12 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)
• Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Editor was openly working to post content for a banned user. Shell ^babelfish 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see any reason to continue the disruption this page was causing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, editing by proxy for a banned user by another user whose days on Wikipedia are numbered. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore the page especially because of John Reids objection #3. Raphael1 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nuked from orbit, banned users forming policy through proxies is a big no no and in fact a notable admin was just de-sysoped for similarly natured behavior. If this policy proposal is undeleted User:Raphael1 will likely continue to operate as Resid Gulerdem's proxy in trying to alter it and will continue to formulate it according to Gulerdem's instructions. Netscott 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and reopen MFD debate. G5 does not apply if somebody does what a banned user wanted to do, because the "proxy" has then taken responsibility for the edit. Apart from that, I agree with Rossami that this should probably kept, and probably marked as rejected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted [er Shell Kenney, Netscott, et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted.
  1. Posting to the mailing lists are, as far as I'm aware, copyrighted with all rights reserved. At the moment any recreation of this proposal will be a copyright violation of Rgulerdem's work.
  2. Even if Rgulerdem releases the content under GFDL, there's absolutely no way we're going to be able to create workable policy out of a banned user's musings. This will be WP:RGULERDEM for all time. If there is anything useful in there (and as far as I can see it's all instruction creeping bureaucratic claptrap) then I'm sure it'll come up somewhere else. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no copyright issue. See Rgulerdems recent mail. Furthermore I consider it an affront towards the Wikipedia community to state, that this proposal will always be Rgulerdems proposal. At least an admin should know, that nobody owns anything here. Raphael1 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Be affronted all you want to, unless Rgulderdem has specifically released this to the public domain, it's still a copyvio. "I approve the actions taken and have no problem with these actions." is not a copyright release. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course it is. Rgulerdem is a previous Wikipedia editor, therefore he is fully aware, that approving to post WP:OURS to Wikipedia means agreeing to GFDL. Raphael1 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

When one opens the edit dialog, there's msg saying

Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.

right besides the save button. So if he owns the copyright, he can't pull it away. If he doesn't, then he can't release under gfdl and must be deleted. That said Keep deleted since it's unnecessary. -- Drini 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he can "pull it away". Every copyright owner can anytime choose to license his work under GFDL. But after he has done so, he can't make it "his own" again. Raphael1 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All this talk about copyright is nonsense, another attempt at an end run around community consensus and due process. I want to see this awful proposal, not hear about it. John Reid 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence/OURS there you go, you can see it. Metros232 19:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy Pages created by a banned user are speediable. The method it's created by doesn't matter, be that by direct editing, a sockpuppet, a proxy editor or even telekinesis, it's still a creation of a banned user (whose name should have been credited in the edit summary for GFDL compliance (see WP:AFC step 2). Regards, MartinRe 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though I missed that chance of crediting him, I credited the original author here and here. Raphael1 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per NoSeptember and Zoe.Timothy Usher 21:11, 12 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 insert a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 26.5%, Merge - 4 votes 26.5%

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)
  • Read the material I have entered here -- AT LENGTH -- and in the remaining article talk page and my talk page. I have covered every accusation made against the article and shown that every accusation made was untrue. There is NO original research and the article was the result of a collective effort. How can all this overwhelming proof be ignored? How am I supposed to correct a situation that does not in reality exist? The article was put up for AfD under false pretenses. How can that be allowed to stand? -- Jason Palpatine 20:44, 11 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 arguments given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguments, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Over a 2-month period, I showed more than enough facts to demonstrate that the charges leveled for AfD were untrue. Despite this, the charges were upheld with the truth being totally ignored -- as just about everyone here is doing. I have laid out the truth in detail here. The facts are overwhelming -- but you and the other completely ignore it! -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 11 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on Jason Palpatine's answer, I have decided not to express an opinion about whether the admin's decision should or should not be overturned. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

According to User:Scm83x: ”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”

I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with

Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

in the main article.

If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article [as of 18:50, 18 April 2006] In other words, that original article material was produced by other editors here.

The following editors all contributed to the article in the month before I took a serious interest:

User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS

This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was

"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all."

The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

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

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:

13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)

11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)

Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

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

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

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

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

Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub-article] inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal WebPages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. -- Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but Wikipedia copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it.

My sources are list above.

When he made his decision, fuddlemark wrote:

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

?

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

OK. Lets go over it again:

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

Accusation -- Original Research.

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

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

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

Accusation -- Unencyclopedic tone.

• What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? There is nothing in the Wikipedia about it. The article is a recitation of a series of events. What about that could be considered “unencyclopedic?” This accusation is nonsense.

When my edits to the article came under ATTACK, I defended my position. I presented clear, concise arguments – whereupon I was accused of original research. I responded to this false accusation by citing my sources of information -- which were labeled "irrelevant"! That is called hypocrisy.

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) ^{speak your mind}

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

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

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

Is there no one who will give this request of mine a clear point for point response? -- Jason Palpatine 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. WP:NOT reader's digest. And please people, brief comments -- nobody wants to read these long essays. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How can I be brief when trying to present facts countering a series of untrue accusations? With al the facts i have presented, how can you ignore the truth? -- Jason Palpatine 10:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• For disclosure, note that I called for this article's deletion in the original debate. Based on my reading of Mr, Palpatine's comments above, I see no actual refutation of the arguments, but instead a fundamental misunderstanding of those original arguments. On the issue of sources, the author seems to have, rather than summarising the interprations of others, he's taken those as a basis for his own interpration of the film. He does not seem to understand the "no original research" and neutral point of view policies, nor the way consesus forming discussion works on Wikipedia. Personally, I thought his analysis was interesting and unique, and really, deserves to be published somewhere. However, that somewhere is simply not Wikipedia. This article was redundant and in violation of core policies, it should not be restored. I believe that Mr. Palpatine could be a valued contributor to Wikipedia, but he still has much to learn.--SB | T 02:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disclosure? Huh? Redundant and in violation of core policies? Sorry, but if that is the case, what was the point of the too big/split flag then? -- Jason Palpatine 06:34, 13 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)
• Endorse closure of the second deletion debate. I find no process problems in that discussion nor do I find any evidence of bias. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Image:WikiPâques.png

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

• 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)

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".

13 June 2006

IRCDig

This article was deleted due to notability claims that were false. IRCDig is just as notable, if not more notable than most torrent search engine articles wikipedia decides to keep. The deletion discussion was split amongst keep and delete votes. The article followed all criteria for a valid article and then some. This article was incorrectly afd'd and should be re-instated. The supporters of deletion argued that the author was the only one that had contributed to the article but what they failed to realize was that the article was only like a week old. LOL... I discovered it when it was in it's afd discussion and contributed a keep vote and would have contributed to the article if I would have had time to see it. KernelPanic 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• AfD here. Whether the website is truly notable or not, this is a textbook proper close. Endorse closure unless notability can be accurately verified. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And what is the official wikipedia process for verifying notability? You say it was a text book closure whether the site is notable or not then you say you endorse the closure until the notability can be accurately verified? Which one is it? If wikipedia is going to allow it's admins to delete articles due to notability then there needs to be a clear and concise process for verifying notability. Until this happens, it is completely open to personal interpretation, which is ALWAYS going to be a mistake due to personal biases. KernelPanic 19:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not "until," "unless." I'll gladly petition to overturn the closure if you can provide some sort of evidence that this is a notable thing. The "admins" didn't delete this, as much as a consensus by a not-insignificant number of fellow editors felt deletion was the correct path, and no claim was made by you or the other editor stating keep to make any sort of notability evident. I'm one of the most inclusive editors on here, and I'm not even convinced that this program is worth an article at this stage. Seriously, prove me wrong and I change my view. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Show us how it meets the standards of WP:WEB "the official wikipedia process for verifying notability" as you requested. This means independent news coverage and/or awards for the site. Lots of Google hits does not make something notable. My username gets 13,300 hits...am I notable? Metros232 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the same respect, using Alexa as a source of showing something as being not notable is not an accurate method either, which is what the afd argument was based on. There are numerous articles about ircdig and numerous other discussions on independant news groups, message boards, etc. You can use the very same google search you condemned to find these artcles. I agree that the amount of information that google has indexed on a particular thing does not make it notable, but I would say that over 3000 uniques a day from over 115 different countries does. Was this article really clutterinh up wikipedia so much, or offending other editors so much that it just had to be removed? wikipedia has become a joke. Now I know why so many people talk trash about it. It is full of a bunch of immature kids who like to try and use their so called "power" to dictate what articles say and what articles even exist. Keep it deleted if it makes you that happy. It is not even worth the argument anymore. The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end. Maybe you should delete your entire site according to your own regulations. The only press I see about wikipedia is negative press (Criticism of Wikipedia). Does that make it notable? KernelPanic 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Lately all the press that George W. Bush gets is negative, is he still notable? :) And to think, I'm a Republican and yet I make that kinda statement. None of the Google hits I see are news articles. This is the closest [34]. There's also one that's a press release from IRCDig. The first one is not a reliable source and press releases don't count for notability.

The owner of ircdig told me that he only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article anyway. Maybe wikipedia is not that notable in the end.

Or could it be that no one's looking for the article because it's not notable? The amount of hits he gets on his site from our article matters so little to our consideration of whether or not to keep an article since we're not a source of advertisement for websites. Metros232 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Relisting to generate more discussion would have been a viable alternative, but the two keep commentators both are new enough contributors and had weak enough points that ignoring their presence is a reasonable decision on the part of the closing admin. Nothing in the AfD or the discussion above asserts that the article met WP:WEB, the topic specific notability guideline. The bit about "only received like 2 or 3 hits a day from the article" indicates that the article was viewed as an advertisement. Advertisements are a direct violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a section of one of the basic policies. As to the other torrent sites, if they are truly not worthy of being kept, their articles will go to eventually. No hurry, but consistency is not required, and taking our time has benefits. GRBerry 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Properly closed, did not assert notability. -M^ask 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. No evidence of notability, and the fact of an article not being advertising is not sufficient grounds to keep it when there is clearly not enough reliable external coverage to ensure neutrality. Just zis Guy you know? 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mending Wall

This discussion was finished rather buptly mid-debate. The problem is that many are misunderstanding the copyright law, confused by a badly worded WP policy. There is a differnece between the copyright on an imprint and the copyright on he content. This poem (which is substantially quoted from) remains within copyright until 70 years after teh death of teh author - it is only a particular imprint of it that can go out of copyright before that. The poem's inculsion on Wikisource and the large quote on WP break copyright. If the WP policy is wrong/badly worded it needs to be changed. WP and WS are currently breaking copyright - and I suspect on several other copyright pieces too. Robertsteadman 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did close the debate a few hours early on three grounds: 1.) There was a consensus to keep, unlikely to change; 2.) the poem is extraordinarily well-known in the US, and is regularly taught in high-school English classes across the country (how do I know? Why, I come from a loooong line of English teachers from all across the country, really) 3.) As I explained to Mr. Steadman at his talk, his understanding of copyright law is incorrect (for which, see his talk page.)

If I wanted to, I could simply say that I ignored opinions known to be in error, and found the debate unanimous. Really, though, even taking Steadman's criticisms at their face-value, there was a consensus to keep -- the discussion to remove the poem's text is editorial, as it is already transwikied. Xoloz 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that your assertion about copyright is incorrect. Copyright on artistic works, in Europe and the US, last for 70 years after teh death oif the authjor and the date of publication is irrelvant. To have such a substantial quote from the poem, at best, stretchs the law and, in my opinion, is a breach of copyright. Certainly the wikisource full use is illegal. I'd love to see a citation for the "extremely well known"-nbess of the poem. One phrase may be well known - in which case the article should be about the phrase not the poem. The only reason the debate wasn't going to change is becaiuse (a) it wasn't given the chance to and (b) false informnation about the notability of the poem and the copyright situaton swayed people. A very sad state of affairs when WP admins are allowing WP to break the law. Robertsteadman 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Steadman, you correctly state US law as it applies today to items published today. Historically, prior to a series of treaties throughout the 1980's, the US law did not give a whit for the author's lifetime. All of this is recounted in full detail at the US Copyright Law article. The newer laws now in force do not apply to Mending Wall, because by the time of their active date, its copyright had already lapsed under the old law. It is unfortunate that you refuse to relent in falsing suggesting Wikipedia is a violating the law. Discerning the copyright of works published in the US between 1923 and 1978 is a confusing process, by reason of the changing law, and occupies an entire course in modern American law school curriculum. Prior to 1923, all published works in the US, by necessity of the operation of law in effect at the time, had their copyrights lapse prior to the enactment of current law. Since my word, and the sources at the WP article, do not convince you, I suggest you take this matter up with Foundation lawyer User:Brad Patrick. He will tell you what I have, in much better detail than I can (since intellectual property is not my area of daily practice): you are incorrect, and WP is within the law. I respect your right to disagree, however wrong you are; but please refrain from suggesting that Wikipedia is breaking the law, for its counsel is very bright, and it is well within the law. Xoloz 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As for notability, the mere fact it is a Robert Frost poem justifies a stub's existence, but I can have references for you shortly.

• Endorse closure. Take to copyright problems if you really think it's a problem, I accept the evidence above that it is not. I am compelled to wonder once again if User:Robertsteadman and User:Robsteadman are related. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Saryn Hooks

Article was AfD'd today, and deleted speedily per A7 after only three votes. Article certainly asserts notability, and frankly, I would have voted Keep.

Content was, more or less, "Saryn Hooks, of Taylorsville,North Carolina, placed third in the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee. She was reinstated after the judges realized they had the incorrect spelling of hechsher. She is fourteen years old and hopes to become a doctor."

Recommend undeletion and relisting at AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain for the moment. Coming third in a spelling bee is certainly not an impressive claim of notability. The judges got her word wrong? Woop de do, I don't think that'll be up there with the Mano de Dios in the Top 100 Shocking Sporting Moments on Channel 4. However, I'm not quite prepared to say that this should be snowballed, hence the abstention. It wouldn't have killed anyone to let this run its course. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Couldn't this detail simply be merged into the article for the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee as a bit of interesting trivia? --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's not very interesting? If it had affected the outcome of the game it would be important, but the girl went out anyway. Looking at the article, I don't see anywhere obvious to insert a mention, and it seems like a very inconsequential thing to start a new '==Trvia==' section with. But if you can do better than I, you don't have to wait for the article to be undeleted to edit the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically, any subject could be merged into another article as a short blurb rather than a real article, but that doesn't really do us justice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and complete AFD The reinstatement is also an assertion of notability. How often does a reinstatement occur? Without knowing this, which only an AFD discussion can address, we can't tell if there is notability. GRBerry 15:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why go to lengths - participation and high placement themselves are assertions of notability! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, reopen AFD A claim of notability necessitates an AFD. --Rob 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, certainly not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not fair for me to vote since I deleted it, but I just wanted to say that this met speedy deletion criteria in my view. I am not opposed to letting the AFD run its course if that is the outcome of this review.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per nom. BoojiBoy 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per nominator. Silensor 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Reviewing the articles on some of the winners of this competition, they would be far better combined a single article (and this one with them). Unless and until they achieve some lasting notability, an article which says that X attended foo school, won a spelling bee one year, and since then has not been mentioned in any reliable sources, would be a clear and unambiguous delete for any adult. I can't believe we're even considering keeping an article on someone whose sole claim to fame is that they came third. Come on, people! The reliable sources contain maybe two facts: the competition and the school. Just zis Guy you know? 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

12 June 2006

User:Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF and User:Winhunter/Userboxes/No-CCP

This user is opposed to online censorship.

This user opposes the Chinese Communist Party.

Both userboxes are in the userspace according to the German Userbox solution, but an admin deleted both of them, saying "T1 deletion as per CSD and Tony Sidaway arbcom case." in the deletion log. I do not believe speedy deletion would apply on userboxes in userspace in these two uesrboxes, especially when there are consensus on German Userbox Solution. --WinHunter^(talk) 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list at MfD - I think these userboxes must necessarily be deleted at MfD, but I think that, in this case, it's worth it to go back and list them there. Other opponents of userboxes, please consider my reasons. (I'm the same one who's argued passionately against not digging up the dead to rebury them.) We have a choice right now: we may start another userbox brouhaha, or not. Let's choose not to. Let's be smart about it this time, and do what Jimbo actually suggested. Once the boxes are in userspace, let's use reason and dialogue to explain why they're a bad idea. Let's do that by taking them to MfD for deletion instead of speedying them, and creating the conditions for much more congenial discussion, where explanation and development of reasons can actually go on in more cooperative spirit. Let's not ruffle feathers with speedy deletions, and then try to have that same conversation at DRV, where it's much more difficult on account of people being upset, and the constant drive to not talk about the content being deleted, but the validity of the deletion instead. This is a crappy place for the conversation to happen. We're not required to speedy polemical pages in user-space. We are free to apply the "if it walks like a template" criterion, or not. Please consider that we can do this encyclopedia a greater service by being a little more slow and deliberate about dealing with the userbox problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at MfD - I dislike these 2 boxes but am convinced by GTBacchus' points. Kimchi.sg 03:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete, and send to MfD Case 1: EFF box. It is anything but obvious that this is inflammatory. It is anything but obvious that this is divisive. Heck, Wikipedia, by policy, is not censored. If there is anyplace that this should not be divisive, it is Wikipedia. This one looks like a clearly erroneous speedy deletion, and possibly should just be overturned without sending it to MfD, as I think a keep outcome is the appropriate MfD result. Case 2: Opposes CCP box. Better addressed on MfD than via a speedy deletion, as per GTBachus' argument above. The inflammatory case is debatable, given that the CCP already attempts to ban the citizens of mainland China from seeing Wikipedia, and that those who circumvent the firewall are unlikely to be the CCP's strongest supporters. GRBerry 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• I do not believe endless TFDs, MFDs, and DRVs are the correct way to resolve this issue. I think it's time to try the final step in dispute resolution. --Cyde↔Weys 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Which is...? If it's "take it to someone who can set binding policy", I agree with you. Jay Maynard 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• ArbCom is the final step of dispute resolution. --Cyde↔Weys 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted These fall under T1. T1 applies to userspace templates still. Would it be better to delete these through TFD or MFD? I believe so, but they have shown that they do not produce correct results w.r.t. to policy. Process is only important if it works. Kotepho 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not democracy. Why are MfDs closed against policy just because the numbers say so? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't know. Why are Gay Nigger Association of America and The Game (game) still around? Their sources are certainly scant.

  I do want to echo your request that userboxes in User: should be taken to *FD instead of speedied in most cases, but the debates need to be closed on their merits instead of numbers. That is not to say that all templates in user space should be taken to *FD--as many are fine in user space--but there are still templates that are so odious that they must be deleted from user space also. I believe that "user against $POLITICAL_PARTY" falls under such a condition, even if I happen to agree with that position. The EFF box is a bit different--enough that it probably should be discussed seperately. "This user supports the EFF" is something that I believe is inappropriate, but not so much that it needs to be deleted immediately. In its current form I believe that T1 is applicable. Kotepho 04:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  It is in userspace, what do you think about this? Jimbo on Userboxes --WinHunter ^(talk) 04:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  The problem with userboxes is that people really really ought not to be using their user pages to advocate for or against green energy or anyone else. - Jimbo Wales I like it a lot. I would add this bit though. I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.[35] On "it is in userspace": I have no idea what you are replying to, as no one disputes that. Kotepho 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I am reasonably certain that Winhunter was referring to this quote: [36] (too long to copy). It is, after all, the one he linked to. —Mira 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  This one [37] too, actually. —Mira 08:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes... from the first diff, and I already quoted from the second diff? The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results. Personally, I'm not a big fan of people using their user pages (or editing the encyclopedia) to advocate their points of view (and Jimbo agrees). How are these boxes anything other than that? Notice how Jimbo doesn't say "Oh I think that is fine", he says "this might work for now, but try and talk some sense into them". Talking hasn't worked; and most of these comment are from months ago. On the issue of substed versus transcluded in userspace, it is not a distinction without a difference. Kotepho 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I haven't seen talking given much of a chance to work. I've seen people try to bypass talking, by just deleting a bunch of boxes repeatedly, and creating conditions for people to feel they're being attacked. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist at MFD agree with GTBacchus. The speedy deletion of userboxes has been far more divisive than any userbox could ever be. —Mira 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete Nothing wrong with either these userboxes or WP:GUS. jgp 07:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete User space is sacred territory!  Grue  07:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. First one is merely unnecessary, second is a childish attempt to piss off the editors you're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia with. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Question. How is the second one going to piss anyone off? Wikipedia is banned where anyone would actually support the Chinese communist party, because of the chinese communist party. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Userspace is not sacred, and must follow policy like anywhere else. --Improv 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Userspace is absolutely fine for userboxes. I don't use them, but I had asked Tony Sidaway about them at User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Random_Userbox_question. He seemed to think they were OK in the userspace, and I disagree that a T1 CSD criterion can apply to the userspace. Because if we can apply other CSD criterion to the user space, then we should delete a crapload of nn-bios and nonsense right now. - Hahnchen 08:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it looks like a duck, and transcludes like a duck, and quacks "Hey you! Your government and your political opinions are evil! By the way, would you like to write an encyclopaedia with me?" like a duck, it's probably a duck and therefore subject to criterion for speedy roasting T1. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are these boxes being treated differently to anything else on the user page? Are we no longer allowed to write down out beliefs on our userpage? If I write on my userpage "Evolution is fact", it's OK? But if I put it into a box, it's crossing some kind of line? If so, I seriously suggest we start at User:SPUI and work on from there. - Hahnchen 09:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I have no problems with people wrting down their beliefs on their userpage within reason, I do have a problem with encouraging others to write down the same beliefs by handing out bumper stickers. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  If you know of any recreated deleted articles being used in userspace as they would be in article space (i.e. inside article categories and/or linked from article space) please remove such links/cats, tag it g4, or bring it to mfd. Kotepho 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Naturally, categorisation or crosslinking from the mainspace to the userspace should not be allowed. I myself have made this error when working on new articles in my userspace. However, the relevance to this conversation seems very little. Many times I have seen 'Userfy' used in deletion discussions, so recreations in the userspace aren't entirely g4 material. - Hahnchen 09:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Of course it does not apply to all templates, but ones that are divisive and inflammatory are fair game even in user space. Examples of such happening would be User Anti-UN and User Anti-ACLU. How is No-CCP significantly different? Kotepho 10:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. POV userboxes but in userspace, which is what the German solution calls for. We have generally granted wide latitude in that area, including clear biases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The whole idea of WP:TGS is to take forward Jimbo's endorsement of how userboxes are handled on the German Wikipedia. He has said that POV should be allowed in user space far beyond what is allowed in template space. Also, I'm strongly against extending T1 to user space. Show me the policy discussion covering that interpretation, please. --StuffOfInterest 10:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If I may quote Jimbo's suggestion regarding the failed UPP proposal: "The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive." CharonX/talk 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The stated reason that a user-page comment to the effect of, 'I hate people with mauve skin' inside a rectangle has not been allowed while 'I hate people with mauve skin' outside a rectangle has been allowed was that the 'rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'Template space' and might therefor theoretically be taken to imply that Wikimedia encourages or tolerates the hating of people with mauve skin... while the 'not in a rectangle version' has traditionally been coming from 'User space' wherein it is more clearly the statement of the individual user(s). Ergo, if a disputed viewpoint resides entirely in user space it does not fall under the stated reason for removal of such from template space... whether it is enclosed in a rectangle or not. Does that make the hating of mauve people a good thing which we should encourage? Of course not, but to date we haven't taken the position that we can (or should) police the content of all userpages to remove any disputed viewpoints. If someone writes on their user page, 'I am gay and have been married to my partner for three years now' we do not remove it on the grounds that 'gay marriage is divisive' yet now some are saying that we should. If people really want to broaden this to a discussion of sanitizing the user space (not just template space) of all disputed beliefs then they need to make a case for that... but until then there are no grounds to do so for bits and pieces of user space - whether they are enclosed in rectangles or not. There have been decisions against the use of the template namespace for disputed viewpoints... not the use of rectangles. --CBDunkerson 11:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  No one is saying that you cannot use rectangles; they are saying you cannot use templates. The definition of a template is not "stuff in Template:". See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Kotepho 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  See the quote from Jimbo that CharonX included above...he seems to disagree specifically with your argument. Jay Maynard 12:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree. You are apparently defining 'template' as 'anything which is transcluded'. That is not stated in the arbcom case you cite and is not consistent with Jimbo's statements about why T1 was created and what kinds of transclusion are acceptable:

  "Suppose we omit the bit about [disallowing] user subpages transcluded without substitution? If we do that, then a certain amount of userboxing can go on no problem, but outside the officially sanctioned spaces. This respects our long tradition of allowing wide latitude on userspace stuff, while at the same time keeping these userboxes out of officially sanctioned areas which would suggest to new users that this is an official thing that one ought to be doing. There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes, of course, but this is not different from the restriction on all manner of things people might put on their userpages already."

  The T1 criteria was created to address Jimbo's concerns (and those of others) about templates (by which I mean 'things in the template namespace') possibly giving the impression that a view was supported by Wikimedia. Above Jimbo makes a clear distinction that transcluded pages from the template and other 'official' namespaces need to be kept free of divisive statements, but transcluded user pages should be treated like any other user page content - where we have long allowed much wider lattitude since they do not reflect on Wikimedia. --CBDunkerson 12:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  What is not clear about "...or a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner..." (Principle 2)? Is this not a userfied copy of a deleted template that is used on pages other than those of its owner? Deleted, check; userfied, check; used on pages other than those of it's owner, check.

  Also--amazingly enough--everything Jimbo says on a random talk page is not ex cathedra; there is a difference between Jimbo's opinion and Jimbo's decrees. Kotepho 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Lots of stuff Jimbo has said on random talk pages is being taken ex cathedra. If the statements that he's made that the anti-userbox faction likes count, so do the statements the anti-userbox faction doesn't like. Jay Maynard 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Are you saying that users are responsible for transclusions by others of their subpages? --SPUI (T - C) 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  When we reach the point that the T1 CSD is re-written to directly contradict the person who is directly responsible for its existence there is a problem. T1 was implemented spontaneously, without any normal approval process, to fill a need specified by Jimbo. Re-interpreting T1 to directly contradict Jimbo's position on this issue would invalidate it's entire basis for existence. As to the ArbCom principle you cite (I was looking for a definition of 'template' consistent with yours)... it deals with attempts to circumvent deletion of unacceptable content by relocating it. It does not address the different standards between what is acceptable in the template namespace and what is acceptable in the user namespace. If something was deleted because it is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia then moving it to the user space is no improvement, but if something was deleted because it was unacceptable in the template namespace (the meaning of T1 actually espoused by the person responsible for its existence), but would be acceptable in the user space, then I don't see a problem with its recreation. Just as the 'non notable bio' CSD applies to 'article' space, but not to 'user' space so to with the T1 CSD in template vs user space. The entire basis of T1's existence, possible implication of Wikimedia support, simply does not apply to the user space. --CBDunkerson 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I swear, when you think you've found a solution to a problem, another problem crops up. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 11:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what solution are you referring to? Most other editors here are citing WP:GUS. --StuffOfInterest 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and do not list at xfD. The German userbox solution is a compromise designed to end the userbox wars. Speedy deleting userboxes in userspace shows contempt for that compromise, and spits in the face of those who worked hard to make it reality. If the same criteria apply to userboxes in userspace as apply to userboxes in template space, then there is no compromise at all, and the wars, and the exodus, will go on. Jay Maynard 11:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is disappointing that we may lose a few good editors, but by and large people who would leave wikipedia over this are people who have the wrong idea about Wikipedia and see their userpage as another livejournal. --Improv 13:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please trim that broad brush. You have no way of knowing that, and the accusation, while not as insulting as saying those who believe userboxes are valuable want to turn Wilipedia into MySpace, is nevertheless quite wide of the mark. The reason people would leave Wikipedia over this is not only the inability to say who one is, but also - and perhaps even more so - that speedy deletions in the face of an ongoing attempt to reach a genuine compromise say that those in power simply do not care what those not in power think. That attitude is far more corrosive than any userbox can be, and, from what I'm seeing, far more pervasive. Jay Maynard 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You hit the nail on the head. When legitimate attempts at compromise are responded to with hard-line stonewalling, you know something is fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia's culture. jgp 13:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The difficulty is that compromise is not possible (or even desirable) in every case. For example, vandals want unlimited vandaism, wikipedia wants none, so it would be pointless to compromise and allow some vandalism. The base issue in this is that some see these boxes as an example of what wikipedia is not, and as such not a valid case for compromise, as what wikipedia is, and is not, is fundamental, not only to its culture, but to wikipedia itself. MartinRe 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Now you're just implying that userboxes are vandalism which is grossly off base and quite insulting. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
            • No, I am implying no such thing. I am simply pointing out that "compromise" is not always a magic word. If you have people that believe (rightly or wrongly) that the opposing view has no merit, then the middle ground will seem equally flawed. If one person thinks 2+2=4 and another says that 2+2=6, a suggested compromise to agree that 2+2=5 would also be rejected, but might be seen as stonewalling. And no, I am not saying any opinion is as right as "2+2=4", but am just pointing out possible reasons why what appears to be a compromise to one person, may appear not to be one to someone else. (and I have seen signs of this on all sides of this debate) Regards, MartinRe 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, as it has always been standard to make and transclude user subpages. --SPUI (T - C) 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no basis for deletion per the German Solution. Also they are most definitely not T1. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy them to my userpage UBX directory (UBX), which is open to all (non-personal attack/reality-compatible) userboxes. If anyone deletes it there, I will undelete it. Simple. TGS will be implemented, by community consensus. Xoloz 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, I got this idea from User:Cyde Weys, no friend of userboxes, and he is helping me implement it, so I'd say it has some sort of "bipartisan support". Xoloz 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, Xoloz, look closely. These were already in user space. Also, if you just undelete them you'll end up being accused of wheel warring. --StuffOfInterest 19:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I know exactly what I said SOI (although I take no offense at your point :) The difference between Winhunter and me is that I can undelete myself, without process hoops. Anyone who wheel-warred with me over my own userspace would go to ArbCom with me, and not be looked on too brightly. If I must wheel-war and lose adminship... oh well. If it ends the userbox war, it is worth it. I trust, however, that my fellow admins would respect my userspace, even if they delete from other "normal users" (sic). If they don't, we'll get this settled. Xoloz 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I hate to say this, but regardless of how it gets there I'm starting to think that ArbCom is the right place to go. I had hoped that when WP:GUS came around, backed by Jimbo's own words, things would finally settle. It appears that this isn't the case and higher level policy may be needed. --StuffOfInterest 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to see fewer user boxes, and I don't care where they are stored. The German system doesn't answer the fundamental question: What is Wikipedia?

Some user boxes are clearly deleted under T1 when they are not inflammatory. The emotional attachment which people show to a particular userbox when it is deleted can indicate whether it is inflammatory, and some raise no hackles. I wouldn't personally delete marginal userboxes until a new policy gains consensus. And people wheel warring over this issue just demonstrates they are too involved to have a dispassionate opinion. What we need in the short term is a simple and non-time consuming way to determine which boxes should be kept and which deleted while policy is worked out.

I suggest a panel of five people representing differing shades of opinion, with a process that means some are deleted and some are kept. Then everyone else can get on with more productive things. It's silly to have so many people involved when at the end of the day, they'll either all be deleted or all be recreated. Stephen B Streater 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Does a userbox having people with emotional attachment automatically make them inflammatory? What about the organ donor one? That had lots of emotional attachment, but it is almost completely inconceivable that it is inflammatory. (I just renewed my driver's license today, and made sure to check the box for organ donation, in part because this issue reminded me of it.)

It makes no sense to do anything with userboxes until policy is worked out. All deleting some does is inflame the situation and make it look like those doing the deleting are trying to get their licks in before they're told not to. That's the fundamental argument here: an admin took it upon himself to act while policy is still in flux, and the consensus appears to be that that is objectionable. Your panel would be even more so. Jay Maynard 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A panel might not be a bad idea, but I'd be shocked if anything becomes a policy on userboxes without just being done for a while first. I'd suggest that whomever forms such a panel look for 1) regular participation (no use having someone who drops out for months at a time), 2) demonstrated ability to be educational in discussing the topic, and for at least most of the panel members 3) demonstrated nuanced decisionmaking - no use having a panel of people whose opinions are predictable before they even see the userbox, as that would defeat the reason for forming a panel. I don't think this could become policy, but if a few people formed a panel that would chime in when requested, and that panel met Stephen B Streater's and my criteria, it could help and could even be a good enhancement to WP:GUS. I'm going to boldly take the suggestion, Jay's and my comments over to the talk page for that. So please follow up on this idea at it's talk page. GRBerry 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Policy Consulting

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Policy Consulting

The article about Strategic Policy Consulting was recently deleted and protected against re-creation, along with its associated redirects. This article is referred to in the frequently vandalised article about Alireza Jafarzadeh. Strategic Policy Consulting is relevant to a current event, the Iran and weapons of mass destruction issue. The company, through its links with the Mujahedeen-e_Khalq, is the primary US source of intelligence about Iran at present. The advice it provides may lead to US military action against Iran, thereby changing the course of history in the near future. A Wikipedia article about this company may be referred to by key decision makers throughout the world as they weigh the value of the advice it provides. With this in mind I would like to suggest the article be re-created so that it can be expanded and linked appropriately. --Dave 08:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the value of the article, I have to say that "A Wikipedia article about this company may be referred to by key decision makers throughout the world as they weigh the value of the advice it provides" is the scariest thing I'm likely to read today. Are you serious? · rodii · 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment was the article deleted by speedy or via AfD? And yes, the idea of the government consulting wikipedia is very frightening. --tjstrf 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Policy Consulting. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Dave probably means that key decision markers will be consulting the subject of the article, not the article itself. If it is the "primary US source of intelligence about Iran", that sounds like a claim of notability not considered by the original AfD that would be worth a re-examination. Is there a third-party source to support this claim? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not how I read it. Not that it's a big deal, but I read it as saying "key decisions maker will turn to the Wikipedia article for background on this company when they decide how much weight to give the company's intelligence." And that seems wrong to me. At the very least, we should be careful not to give credence to any claims about the company unless they meet a pretty high standard of verification. But I think that takes us out of deletion review territory. I agree with what you say about re-examining the evidence. · rodii · 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect/undelete. The article was deleted as an advertisement, but only 4 users even commented on the deletion. A rewritten form should be acceptable and it has a seemingly good claim to notability based on its owner. --tjstrf 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, but don't object to a rewrite if notability can be established. Just because only four people commented does not make this an invalid deletion. Discuss process. Please note that Googling '"Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc." -wikipedia' only brings up 55 hits, and the first five of those are various websites created by the company. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: I was the person who originally put this article up for AfD, way back just over a year ago. At the time, the article contained nothing to establish notability. One of the phrases from the article prior to that deletion: "there is a new power house in foreign policy namely Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc." The article read like spam, and I feel was deleted appropriately. The four versions that have been speedy deleted since the AfD deletion have contained less content than the first entry, with the content being less spam like but containing nothing to assert notability. That Alireza Jafarzadeh is the company's president is not in my opinion sufficient to make the company itself notable, as what minimal content has been included in the five deleted versions of the article could very easily be merged into the Alireza Jafarzadeh article. There is a claim above that this company is the primary source of intelligence on Iran for the United States. If that is true, then that is certainly enough claim to notability for an article. However, the claim at this point is uncited. I invite the person who made this deletion review request to create a proposed article at Strategic Policy Consulting/Temp, complete with citations and references substantiating this group's notability. This will give us an opportunity to fairly evaluate if there really is a claim to notability here or if the content should be included in the Alireza Jafarzadeh article, with perhaps a redirect from the subject article. --Durin 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletions as recreated content. Allow a rewrite in the Temp space citing independent third-party sources and demonstrating how this company meets the criteria of WP:CORP. I note that this page was rewritten during the AFD discussion by user:12.38.30.1, an IP address whose registration traces back to the same street address as this company. It was reposted word-for-word by that same IP and by two other IPs, leading me to believe that this is a single insider posting about his/her company. If you think you or your company might be important enough for an article, it's always a good idea to wait and let someone else write it. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: In reviewing the contribution history of the anon IP user, every edit made to other articles has apparently either been deleted or reverted as vandalism. That does seem to make it harder to assume good faith in this particular case. Rossami (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted stub article which made absolutely no claim to encyclopaedic notability. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

This article was previously nominated for deletion with a decision of non-consensus. I question that the article meets neutrality and verifiability conditions for wiki articles. The original article was submitted by a member of the chat site as a vanity piece. The author, Avi, goes by the same name here and on the chat site. He is listed on the web chat site as a site supporter, which he describes as people who contributed funds to sustain the site. Also, most of the article is not verifiable as to who visits, size or influence.Deletionary 03:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• User's 5 edits are all to a AfD or DRV. Kimchi.sg 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have reason to think that the judgement of non consensus is incorrect, and that really there WAS a consensus to delete but the admin missed it, the best thing to do is to wait an appropriate time, and relist the article. DRV is not for revisiting the deletion discussion itself (which it often is helpful to give a link to, though, by the way) but rather for discussing whether there's some reason that it needs to be overturned. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

11 June 2006

The Esplanade Mall

Sheesh - I had to hunt through my browser history to find this. It was deleted recently on VFD. I found it soon after in CAT:CSD tagged at a repost. When I found it, it already was not "just a lengthy list of stores that exist at a mall" as the originally-deleted article was. I cleaned it up and completely rewrote it; the article included information about it being closed due to Hurricane Katrina. And yet it was still deleted as a repost. --SPUI (T - C) 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I was the admin who last deleted this article (it had been deleted as a repost once before). Although the content had been slightly rewritten it was fundamentally the same article. I believe that there may have been some confusion here, because the original article also contained a list of stores (but not only a list of stores - as a comment on the AfD indicated). Please let me know if you want me to retrieve the actual contents. Cheers TigerShark 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  I remember rewriting it - the grammar was horrible. Also, one of the "votes" reads:

  Even the cleaned-up version (of Clearview Mall) is simply a list of stores. If the article were to contain additional information, such as history of the mall, significant stores that have come and gone, significant events held at the mall, etc. I'd say keep.

  Given that the article as rewritten included some history, either Rehcsif didn't bother to read the article, or the article as rewritten was not the one on VFD. --SPUI (T - C) 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. The article as it stood at the time when the AfD was closed and the article deleted was substantially similar to the most recent version, the main difference being that the most recent version was better written and some cruft had been jettisoned (which did not affect the rationale for deletion - non-notability). A mention of the mall being affected by Hurricane Katrina was inserted into the article only an hour after the AfD began, and didn't sway any editors. And is that really the most interesting thing to say about this shopping centre? Certainly Hurricane Katrina damaged loads of places and doesn't confer notability by association. Unless there's something verified about it that hasn't been brought up yet worth putting in an encyclopaedia, keep deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If "votes" that concur with deletion of the present article due to its problems are to be taken as "votes" against any future article on the topic, I will be sure to "vote" to keep any article about a shopping mall, no matter how shitty the writing is. On the one hand, people say to "vote" on how the current article is, not on what it could be, but then (presumably) others delete any new article as a re-creation. --SPUI (T - C) 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. For any mall, it is worth describing its role as a transit hub, if this is the case. TruthbringerToronto 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD per TruthbringerToronto. (I tagged the latest recreation of the article, which SPUI removed.) Let's see if SPUI (and others?) can expand the article enough. Kimchi.sg 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• 'Relist might as well see the contents and judge based on those, it sounds like it might be an expandable subject. --tjstrf 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We already did that, and so far no new content has been presented to judge since the AfD closed 3 days ago. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It was listed alongside Clearview Mall, and both received an overwhelming proportion of delete votes, including comments like "malls are not inheirantly notable" and "malls are generally not notable." and "I appreciate the idea and effort, but articles on the malls of towns falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to use one of my rare free moments to make a quick comment about this article. I originally listed the article for AfD when it was a list of malls, I would still place in AfD after seeing the recreated article. This mall wasn't the only thing that was hit by Hurricane Katrina, many more things were devasted by it. For instance, homes, roads, a large stadium, people's lives. By placing an article on a mall and stating that it's notable because it closed due to a large Hurricane, is making a mockery of people's lives and of the purpose of Wikipedia. Nothing notable happened in this mall to make it noteworthy, and the closing of a mall due to a hurricane (which is what the mall is SUPOSED to do, so that makes it norm), is not anywhere near the quality that Wikipedia needs to maintain. Yanksox 11:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. I reviewed a number of the deleted versions of this article both before and after the deletion decision. I do not consider them sufficiently different to have addressed the core concerns raised during the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete as an improper speedy deletion. Silensor 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Ling

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

• Shame about Mailer leaving; it does mean we can't ask him to explain himself. This seems a borderline case; I'd suggest overturning the close and relisting. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse closure. I think you are confusing the way these deletion debates are handled. Consensus is a higher standard than a mere supermajority. It means that we pay as much or more attention to the weight of arguments as we do to the weight of numbers. Reviewing the discussion, I make a vote-count of 16 "delete" to 7 "keep" (with one probable troll discounted). Had there been strong evidence, that could have been sufficient to interpret as the necessary "rough consensus" for deletion. In this case, however, the arguments focused on whether the person is notable enough to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies and neither side of this debate presented strong evidence either way. Furthermore, many of the participants explicitly qualified their opinions as "weak" (5 of the "keeps" were phrased as "weak keep" and 2 of the "deletes" were "weak delete"). Closing this discussion as "no consensus" seems to me to be well within the reasonable discretion of a closing admin.
  Note: a "no consensus" decision defaults to keep for now but does not prevent anyone from gathering stronger evidence and renominating it for deletion after a reasonable delay. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How, exactly, does one gain stronger evidence of non-notability? You cannot prove a negative, right? I understand that it is not merely a matter of votes, but I offered up what I could, and no one else had much to say. This may be because there wasn't much left to say - those for keeping didn't speak up to justify their votes, while those who voted to delete explained their specific rationale (re notability). Were they expected to expound on it for a full paragraph each? Clearly they felt the matter was a simple one and didn't feel the need to orate on it. While I respect that this isn't necessary what is sought after in an AfD, please let me know what else could have been done, if something wasn't handled well. Girolamo Savonarola 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To gain stronger evidence of non notability, search in more and different, yet still appropriate, places and present the negative results. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, Lar, surely the onus is on those claiming notability to prove that is the case, and not the other way round as it's based on WP:V, verifying that he's notable. (also see comment below) Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I was just directly answering the question asked. However, on a RE list, I think the lister has some responsibility to present new information, sufficient to justify why the previous result was unsatisfactory, or to show that things have changed in some way . That said, I agree with what you say below (and endorse the closure), because "the passage of time with no new notability proof" is a kind of "change in some way". ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure the afd focused on whether the subject was notable enough, and the opinion seemed to be borderline, verging on no, so "no consensus" seems a fair enough call on the afd. (if in doubt, don't delete, but not enough case for full keep) However, the notability claims need to be strengthened to remove that doubt, if this is not done, then it could be brought to afd again after a reasonable time, and if the arguements are similar, it will probably swing to delete, with the additional factor of no claims being found since the last afd weighing against the notability claim. Regards, MartinRe 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Mailer diablo does not need to explain himself, the no consensus to delete is quite clear. Silensor 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Siberian language

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

• Comment Original deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian language. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain - The current contents are indeed vastly different than the old, and it does seem perhaps a bit odd to delete as a recreate of a validly deleted article. That being said, the new content was incredibly poor, with bad spelling, links to livejournal, and many of the other markers of a poor article. I also wonder whether it's appropriate to call this a language -- by the article it sounds more like a description of a dialect (perhaps like calling a Boston accent a Boston language?). In sum, I don't know if there's any content worth keeping, and the title's probably misleading too. I'm open to lines of reasoning by other people on this one. --Improv 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The matter is just to construct a full language on the base of dialect --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you saying this is a project to build a language out of a dialect? Are you involved? How big is this? --Improv 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. Yes. 2. We have group of 81 persons who work at it - http://community.livejournal.com/learn_siberian/profile, but I am the leader of this group. 3. It has 15000 words in dictionary now http://volgota.com/govor/language/lj.doc.zip? online dictionary provided by ukrainian research group (NOT me, I can not program) http://totem.in.ua/sib/trans.php, it has rather wide literature of abouat 100 texts http://volgota.com/govor/, it has news service http://volgota.com/news/, so surely it is not OR --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Endorse Deletion - No disrespect is intended for you or your project, but this is too small and too new a project to be covered on Wikipedia, and this smacks of using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Maybe in a few years, this might be appropriate for an article, but as for right now, the article is too close to original research (I doubt there are independent studies of the language) and promo. --Improv 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Utter nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as the "Siberian language". --Timothy Usher 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • just see it at http://volgota.com - newspaper, books, site interface. Wiki has many articles about languages not so developed as Siberian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - The language was developed from the time of last deletion, now it is very complicated, many texts translated and written, many people learning it, a big site launched, so it is not "non-notable" conlang now --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I absolutely agree with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. By the way, the site about siberian language and test wiki on siberian --Steel archer 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Both of these accounts were created to vote on Deletion Review. Not cool. --Improv 16:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You can see my history in UK and Yaroslav's (Anarch) history in RU Wikipedias. Why new users can't vote? --Steel archer 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. --Pjacobi 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, looking at the article, the VfD was as valid today as it was last year. --fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, elucidate your thought. --Steel archer 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable constructed language. There are no independent, neutral sources to confirm the existance of a specific "Siberian language" as described in the article. There are several languages spoken in Siberia, but this article does not adress any of them. --Ezeu 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The test wiki is not an independent reliable source. Much of it is written by some people participating here. --Ezeu 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Siberian language was prohibited in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. And now, most of people which are against this language are russian imperialists indeed. And this is a reason why it is rather difficult to find sources about siberian. There are no full literature siberian language: Yaroslav Zolotaryov just constructs it basing on many siberian dialects. So, you can hardly ever find people speak on ""literature"" siberian - only on its dialects. --Steel archer 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist to AfD: from my reading in linguistics I would expect it to be deleted there, but it would give non-admins the chance to debate the deletion on the merits of its content, especially as it doesn't seem to meet the recreated content CSD. --Aquilina 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - This page needs to be undeleted. The language has already been constructed. It is based on a local dialect, but its' origins are really beside the point. There is, for example, a wiki page for Talossan language, that has been constructed by a single person for a country completely invented by him, and whose "words and grammar are just made up at random". Surely Siberian has far better basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.29.135 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• The speedy-deleted version was significantly different from the deleted version. On that basis, I'm afraid that we must overturn the speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. However, I am deeply skeptical that the article will prevail during the deletion discussion. The prior deletion discussion was unanimous and included the opinion of the alleged author of this recently constructed language. None of the concerns raised in the prior deletion debate have been answered either in the redeleted article nor in this discussion so far. The wiki does not meet the required standards for a reliable source and the google test (168 unique hits) returns very little that appears relevant. Every hit I scanned used the phrase "Siberian language" in the casual sense of "a language used by a community indiginous to the geographic area of Siberia", not in the sense of a unified language. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You can try the google test in russian language, and will see many sources about the siberian not from me or Volgota group. Being an artefact of local culture, it is simply not mentioned in the english-speaking audience --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Without sources that are functionally verifiable by the english-speaking participants of the English Wikipedia, that won't help much. Perhaps this would be more appropriate if transwiki'd to the Russian Wikipedia]? Rossami (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Better to the ukrainian article in http://ukr.wikipedia.org/wiki, because we believe it is more ibjective. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak overturn and relist per Aquilina. The version debated on VfD was a short stub, while the version deleted as G4 was fairly detailed. That said, I'd say the new version fails WP:OR pretty hard, and should be deleted or heavily shortened on that basis unless independent sources are provided. It's almost a WP:SNOW case, but I'm personally willing to give it its five days on AfD, just in case I'm proven wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Some independent sources http://dpni.org/forum/post48701.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Do you have any sources in English? The sources above may well substantiate the claims in the article for all I know, but I can't really tell since my grasp of Russian is almost nonexistent. Failing that, you might try to find a neutral established Wikipedian who understands Russian to review the sources — any volunteers? (In any case, this discussion belongs on AfD, should the article get relisted there, not here on DRV. If you wish to reply in length, please do so on my talk page or wait for the AfD listing.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist as different, where I will vote delete as this asserts the factual existence of this language, but no reliable sources have been produced to suggest that it is anything other than a conlang. Just zis Guy you know? 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Mikka, who speaks several comparable languages and is (unlike the average AfD voter) able to understand the supposed sources. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. original research. No independent information from anywhere but fans' writings provided. (forums are not allowed as sources for wikipedia) `'mikka (t) 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: this is nót about the question whether it is a good article or not. If there's something wrong with an article, it should be improved. Perhaps the English wasn't perfect indeed, and perhaps there was a link to a blog or something, but I think this article was still a lot better than the average stub. That kind of things can be fixed easily without deleting an article. Neither is this about the question whether constructed languages in general should be in Wikipedia or not. Nor about the question whether this article was original research. This is about the way it was deleted! Every time when a conlang is listed for deletion, they say: at present this language is not notable enough, but when that has changed, by all means create an article about it. Now, I think there are reasons to assume that that is indeed the case here. I can see many reasons why the language is notable enough. But even if I'm wrong, the merits of Siberian should be discussed properly in an AfD discussion, but definitely not here. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Surely, the article can be changed, my english is poor, and my view to the language is definitely non-neutral, so if would be better article, it would be fine --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:NOR. It's just another LiveJournal flashmob. MaxSem 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's exactly the point. That might have been true one year ago, it definitely isn't true anymore. But again, let's not start discussing the article itself, but the way it has been deleted. At present, no one can even read what the discussion is about. I think the least it deserves is a proper AfD discussion, pending which every participant in the discussion can read the article. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've temporarily undeleted the history for the duration of this DRV discussion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme speedy keep deleted. OR, an attempt at advertising an nn conlang, nothing has changed to make this more notable than the first decision to delete. We're not here to reargue the AfD, but to discuss whether or not the original deletion was appropriate. It was, it still is. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but this is not about the question whether the original deletion was appropriate. It no doubt was. If little Pete writes an article about his hobbies, then it will be deleted. But if he's suddenly elected president of the USA, does that mean there can't be an article about him because there has already been a valid VfD? What bothers me is this: once an article has survived an AfD, it can be relisted for deletion again, and again, and again, until the deletionists get their way. But once an article has been deleted, there is no way go get it back, even if things may have changed. I think that's bad, very bad! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: out of curiosity I looked into the website of the "language". After reading the "translation" of Pushkin quoted below I am more inclined to believe this is a practical joke rather than a serious attempt to revive a supposedly extinct "Siberian" dialect of Russian. Native Russian speakers, prepare for a good laugh:

  Мой дедя шыбко чесных веров,

  Кода-от шыбко захворал,

  Людям дык всю дыхню зашкерил,

  В горбыль всех просто зайобал.

  And there is more of this.`'mikka (t) 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • But such were dialetical expressions of the same meaning which is in Pushkin verse, and you laugh simply for diregarding the folk speech --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, Eugene Onegin in hillbilly... ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Tread carefully the fine line between humour and mockery. --Ezeu 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • No mockery of Pushkin there, Pushkin himself liked dialects, used them, if he were alive now, he perhaps voted for siberian here. His poem "Ruslan and Ludmila" was also regarded as mockery just for using dialectical words and common people's relation to the topic of this poem. So in fact, our group continues Pushkin's work, but conservators are against him --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. Just like "bad spelling", "links to livejournal", "too small and too new a project", "no such thing as the Siberian language", "no reliable sources", "promotion" and "original research" are irrelevant here. Again, this discussion should not be about the language itself. We have AfD discussions for that. This discussion is about the question whether an article that has been deleted in the remote past can or cannot be recreated. The admin in question has unilaterally deleted the article and locked the page, and thát is the decision I'm questioning here. People's personal tastes have no place in such discussion. For the record, I don't have a clear opinion on the matter. I'm in no way connected to the creators of the language. What I can tell as one of Wikipedia's self-proclaimed resident conlang experts, is that a lot seems to have changed since the last AfD. If the language has indeed a group of 80 active users, and if there is some press coverage, then it just might qualify for an article. Besides, we have this discussion about a wikipedia in the language going on. Personally, I don't believe this is a hoax. But like I said, that kind of arguments belong in an AfD discussion, not here. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This was not an argument. This was a comment that started this thread. This zolotarev guy extended his hobby joke as to suggest a siberian language wikipedia. How do you imagine wikipedia in hillbilly. This alone says something about this project. As for 80 active users: how do you know that? Somehow I don't believe Zolotaryov. The basic argument against undeletion is wikipedia:Verifiability. The "some" press coverage seen is not a reliable source, it is still word of language creator's mouth, not of an independent linguistics expert. In other words, the major objection voiced during deletion is not addressed by the new version. Article size doesn't matter. `'mikka (t) 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • A hundred years ago Ukrainian was also considered "hillbilly Russian" by the czarist government. In other words, thát argument doesn't really hold stake. As for your point regarding verifiability: I tend to agree with you here. I'd love to see some samples of real press coverage, because thát is IMO what makes the difference. I don't know whether to believe Mr. Zolotaryov or not. The whole discussion evokes quite strong reminiscences of High Icelandic. If you haven't seen it, I'd say it's worth to take a look at the AfD discussion there. My whole point is only that I think the subject deserves proper discussion, and this is not the place for it. In a normal AfD discussion I certainly wouldn't have voted "keep" without convincing arguments. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 22:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • But it should be defined, what argument are relevant in the english wiki. If it will be defined with certainity, I shall find them. "There is no such language at all" surely is not an argument. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted this nonsense, please. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. AfD had six deletes, no keeps. No suggestion of any voting irregularities or debatable sysop judgement. I note too that the article has no real references; the fact that one of the external links is described as "Volgota, the main promo site" strongly suggests that the purpose of the article is not to synthesize published factual material into an encyclopedia article, but to promote a project. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite so. Nobody is arguing that the AfD was invalid. But for heaven's sake, that was over a year ago! A lot can change in the meantime. If Yaroslav can somehow substantiate his claims about the number of speakers, and provide some verifiable info regarding press coverage, then I can't see why the article wouldn't deserve a second chance. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • In what way can I substantiate it? What info about the press is verifiable? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to believe that this Yaroslav fellow (among others) has any existence beyond that of a sockpuppet created to vote in this deletion review..Timothy Usher 05:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • But I do! User's first contribution was dated 10 June, 18:49 (UTC). This deletion review was dated 11 June, 9:32 (UTC). So tell me: how can this account have been created with the sole purpose of voting here, if there wasn't any vote yet? I think it's always better to assume good faith! —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 07:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nn and ue. Also, there seems to be a campaign to start a separate Wikipedia in this language. What's next Klingon and Elvish Wikipedias? --Irpen 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There used to be a wikipedia in Klingon, but it has been closed down. An Elvish wikipedia has been proposed, but I don't think there's enough support for it. BTW, I'm not thát frequent a guest here; what does "ue" mean? —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Those must have been shut down for a reason. ue=unencyclopedic, nn=non-notable. --Irpen 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Nonsense. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

10 June 2006

Template:Major_programming_languages

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

• Note: Original TFD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_25#Template:Major_programming_languages — xaosflux ^Talk 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I would have closed this TfD the same way IceKarma did. Unless Lulu's opinion would have brought with it a fantastic new argument, I doubt including his "vote" amongst the others would have tipped the balance, either. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  No,I wouldn't have had any fantastic argument that was much different from other voters. I just think that a supermajority (i.e. 75-80%, or at the least 66%) should be required for deletion, rather than just a majority (absent evidence of sockpuppetry, or clearly more experienced editors on one side of a vote, or other special circumstance... none of which existed here). 11/7 is pretty much the same thing as 11/6 in this regard. LotLE×talk 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  Well, *fD's being not a vote is more than just discounting inexperience or sockpuppetry. It also means that an overwhelming majority is not required for consensus to exist. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm generally in favor of keeping articles over deleting them (as long as they're maintainable and verifiable), but it seems clear from the discussion that maintaining the template was plain infeasible, by consensus. I also note that there was no prejudice against creating a new, more maintainable template. Powers 18:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  When did I mention the tally? When closing AfDs, MfDs, RfDs, and the occasional (during the long dark teatime of the soul) TfD, I make a point of never counting the number of "votes". Knowledge of the raw numbers will shed no light on the appropriate course of action, and is thus unnecessary and occasionally even obfuscatory. Bugger the tally. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lulu: Tfd is not a vote! Don't count comments like it was one. --Cyde↔Weys 03:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Erik Möller

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

• there are also two previous versions of Erik Möller that have been deleted previously, the first was a redirect and the second was very short. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• There are about 4,000 copies of my book. It's a niche publication about wikis, weblogs and open source software. I don't think having written a single book with such a small run makes me a notable person.--Eloquence* 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, hasn't sold over 5,000 copies of his book, also doesn't meet "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" of WP:BIO. --Rory096 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To be accurate, there have been numerous reviews in newspapers, magazines and radio; I get a regular sample of those from my publisher. But again, the print run is fairly small, and a bit of media attention is to be expected given the topics covered.--Eloquence* 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Do we really need a Wikipedia article for every Wikipedian, even the more famous ones? What's next, an article for me? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Margana found it nessecary to prove her point by creating that article in violation of WP:POINT. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The subject of the page nominated the page for deletion with the reason "Non-notable, wikicruft." The editor in question is a very experienced and highly respected editor with a deep understanding of our policies, standards and traditions. If even he argues to delete the page, we should trust his judgment. Incidentally, my own reading of our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies confirms that decision. One niche publication is not generally considered sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if Erik Möller says he's not notable, I believe him. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Only claim to significance outside of Wikipedia is being a published author... of a book with ~4,000 printed copies. The deletion of this article is perfectly valid.--SB | T 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Just zis Guy. AnnH ♫ 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
  • user's third edit to Wikipedia
  • Reminder: Deletion review is not the place to simply continue a closed AfD. It's not "Articles for Deletion, Round 2". Comment on only whether the discussion was concluded correctly. Don't rehash the same points that you have already mentioned in the AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• 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" [38] - 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. [39]
  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 [40] shows 486 hits, none of which are to reliable sources. Only 42 of these are unique. [41]
  5. MSN [42] and Yahoo [43] 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: [44]) Kimchi.sg 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Kimchi. Postdlf 13:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep deleted per Kimchi's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as within administrator discretion. I note that a number of the participants in the deletion discussion have suspiciously short contribution histories. However I'll also note that a more detailed explanation by the closer would have been appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Thanks, Kimchi. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Kimchi. Normally, deletion review is not a re-vote on the merits of the arguments advanced in AfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 12 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)

• Note from User:Netscott: Despite what the nominator has said, the actual reasoning for speedy deletion of this policy proposal was general criteria for speedy deletion #5, "Pages created by banned users while they were banned.". This policy proposal was created by the banned editor Resid Gulerdem. While User:Raphael1 did make some perfunctory changes to the WP:OURS proposal that Resid Gulerdem created, his putting it online was sooner a proxy act for Gulerdem. Due to these facts alone this deletion review appears prima facie unqualified to even continue and I would recommend to the first admin reading this to close it accordingly. Netscott 13:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? You have chosen to leave a rude, snotty message on my talk page as well. Sceptre made a mistake, that's all. I should not have gone to any particular length to point up this fact; it's enough to correct it. We all make mistakes but they can be fixed.

There is no speedy criterion for pages created by proxy; that is an invention. Further, I detest your use of legalese to insist that again process be circumvented. Please get off your high horse and let us express our community will. John Reid 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting if somewhat agressive/inappropriate response to my rather polite talk page message. User:Sceptre made no mistake in speedy deleting this banned user's policy proposal creation. As submittor of this policy proposal for MfD I would have opted for speedy deletion (as it rightly was) had I properly thought through the proxy nature of it's creation on Wikipedia relative to speedy deletion general criteria #5. As it was I admit that I wasn't clear about that. Netscott 21:04, 12 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)
• Keep deleted, a typo in the deletion summary isn't a reason to undelete a page. --Rory096 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. I see no compelling reason for bypassing process in this case. --Ashenai 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• I am disturbed by the process allegations on both sides of this debate. On balance, I do not think that a clear case can be made that this met any of the deliberately narrow criteria for speedy-deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and reopen the deletion discussion (where, by the way, I am inclined to argue to keep the page - failed policy pages are tagged with {{rejected}} but kept so we can learn from them in the future). Rossami (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Editor was openly working to post content for a banned user. Shell ^babelfish 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I don't see any reason to continue the disruption this page was causing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, editing by proxy for a banned user by another user whose days on Wikipedia are numbered. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore the page especially because of John Reids objection #3. Raphael1 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nuked from orbit, banned users forming policy through proxies is a big no no and in fact a notable admin was just de-sysoped for similarly natured behavior. If this policy proposal is undeleted User:Raphael1 will likely continue to operate as Resid Gulerdem's proxy in trying to alter it and will continue to formulate it according to Gulerdem's instructions. Netscott 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and reopen MFD debate. G5 does not apply if somebody does what a banned user wanted to do, because the "proxy" has then taken responsibility for the edit. Apart from that, I agree with Rossami that this should probably kept, and probably marked as rejected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted [er Shell Kenney, Netscott, et al. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted.
  1. Posting to the mailing lists are, as far as I'm aware, copyrighted with all rights reserved. At the moment any recreation of this proposal will be a copyright violation of Rgulerdem's work.
  2. Even if Rgulerdem releases the content under GFDL, there's absolutely no way we're going to be able to create workable policy out of a banned user's musings. This will be WP:RGULERDEM for all time. If there is anything useful in there (and as far as I can see it's all instruction creeping bureaucratic claptrap) then I'm sure it'll come up somewhere else. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no copyright issue. See Rgulerdems recent mail. Furthermore I consider it an affront towards the Wikipedia community to state, that this proposal will always be Rgulerdems proposal. At least an admin should know, that nobody owns anything here. Raphael1 16:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Be affronted all you want to, unless Rgulderdem has specifically released this to the public domain, it's still a copyvio. "I approve the actions taken and have no problem with these actions." is not a copyright release. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course it is. Rgulerdem is a previous Wikipedia editor, therefore he is fully aware, that approving to post WP:OURS to Wikipedia means agreeing to GFDL. Raphael1 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

When one opens the edit dialog, there's msg saying

Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.

right besides the save button. So if he owns the copyright, he can't pull it away. If he doesn't, then he can't release under gfdl and must be deleted. That said Keep deleted since it's unnecessary. -- Drini 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he can "pull it away". Every copyright owner can anytime choose to license his work under GFDL. But after he has done so, he can't make it "his own" again. Raphael1 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All this talk about copyright is nonsense, another attempt at an end run around community consensus and due process. I want to see this awful proposal, not hear about it. John Reid 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence/OURS there you go, you can see it. Metros232 19:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy Pages created by a banned user are speediable. The method it's created by doesn't matter, be that by direct editing, a sockpuppet, a proxy editor or even telekinesis, it's still a creation of a banned user (whose name should have been credited in the edit summary for GFDL compliance (see WP:AFC step 2). Regards, MartinRe 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though I missed that chance of crediting him, I credited the original author here and here. Raphael1 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per NoSeptember and Zoe.Timothy Usher 21:11, 12 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 insert a comment or two). The final tally was Keep - 7 votes 47%, Delete - 4 votes 26.5%, Merge - 4 votes 26.5%

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)
  • Read the material I have entered here -- AT LENGTH -- and in the remaining article talk page and my talk page. I have covered every accusation made against the article and shown that every accusation made was untrue. There is NO original research and the article was the result of a collective effort. How can all this overwhelming proof be ignored? How am I supposed to correct a situation that does not in reality exist? The article was put up for AfD under false pretenses. How can that be allowed to stand? -- Jason Palpatine 20:44, 11 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 arguments given, and not simple numbers, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afd is not a vote, and is based on weight of arguments, not weight of numbers. Regards, MartinRe 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Over a 2-month period, I showed more than enough facts to demonstrate that the charges leveled for AfD were untrue. Despite this, the charges were upheld with the truth being totally ignored -- as just about everyone here is doing. I have laid out the truth in detail here. The facts are overwhelming -- but you and the other completely ignore it! -- Jason Palpatine 16:12, 11 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on Jason Palpatine's answer, I have decided not to express an opinion about whether the admin's decision should or should not be overturned. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

According to User:Scm83x: ”(readd {{splitlong}} , 111kb is huge... something has to be moved to a new article... perhaps the plot summary should be cut down...”

I branched that article off of the main article in response to this. It was the first part of the article to be split. A simplified synopsis was left in the main with

Main article: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

in the main article.

If you check the history of the main article, much of the lengthy detailed synopsis that would become the article we are discussing here was already in place in the primary article before I entered the picture. I took concentrated interest in the article beginning with my edit of 20:15, 18 April 2006. Please look at the prior version of the primary article [as of 18:50, 18 April 2006] In other words, that original article material was produced by other editors here.

The following editors all contributed to the article in the month before I took a serious interest:

User:128.95.15.78, User:134.114.59.41, User:141.154.59.190, User:200.207.16.222, User:203.217.64.73, User:207.208.157.183, User:216.55.222.221, User:63.41.12.17, User:64.93.158.158, User:65.174.176.123, User:65.54.97.194, User:67.81.189.88, User:68.14.154.242, User:69.143.172.3, User:70.18.71.105, User:70.231.235.251, User:71.113.185.129, User:71.242.131.195, User:72.144.136.77, User:72.40.90.163, User:72.56.157.31, User:80.200.209.231, User:Allemannster, User:Ashmoo, User:Bwileyr m, User:CmdrObot, User:Comics, User:DanielLC, User:DavidH, User:Dayv, User:Deltabeignet, User:Duncancumming, User:Dysprosia, User:FunkyFly, User:Hetar, User:JRawle, User:Knife Knut, User:Larry V, User:LordofHavoc, User:Lottoextra, User:Lysowski, User:MarnetteD, User:MikeBriggs, User:Modemac, User:MotionRotaryTOAD, User:Pearle, User:Pegship, User:PurpleHaze, User:RedNovember, User:Riddle, User:RussBot, User:Seminumerical, User:Simninja, User:The Anome, User:The Singing Badger, User:Thefourdotelipsis, User:WAS

This was the work of many people, not just me. My primary intesnt was a major mistake which was over time corrected by other admins -- the inclusion of way too many pictures from the film. This matter was dealt with -- the number images was drastically reduced to what should have been considered an acceptable amount. However, some admins were not satified and cut back too much. I do not mind editing, but I absolutely oppose butchery and sterility. 2001 is a heavily visually structured event (check out the TMA-1 image in the Dialouge section of the main article). I considered more than the usual number of images in Wik policy to be necessary for the synopsis section/article to do justice to the film. The only answer I got was

"There is no such thing as too little when it comes to fair use. That is all."

The sizing is also quoted. With the destruction of the article and its talk page, I can not cite the identity of the admin you posted the remark. I only know that it was not any of the admins who have posted here.

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

I tried to do that with the Film Synopsis following the AfD implementation. The admins who were responsible for motioning the AfD of the Film Synopsis article reverted my edits as I made them:

13:51, 9 June 2006 Scm83x m (Reverted edits by Jason Palpatine (talk) to last version by Angr)

11:26, 9 June 2006 Angr (The result of the AFD was to delete the synopsis, not incorporate it back in here)

Given the intense opposition I am facing here, it's not likely to happen. (please check out my User page under the heading A question in response to recent events here)

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

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

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

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

Pasted from my talk page :

The article as it stands references no sources at all, so why didn't you include the full listing of your sources in the article, as required by WP:V? What I mean by secondary sources is outlined in WP:RS, but basically if the article is a film synopsis, then, by definition, it is based on the primary source. The question is then, who is doing the synopsis? If that synopsis is by a wikipedia editor, then it is original research. If the synopsis is done by someone else, then wikipedia could source that as a secondary source, but the article should then discuss the synopsis, but not the film itself. Thus, a synopsis of a film must fall into two categories, either secondary sources has summarized it, and the article reproduces it, which is a problem with copyright, or an editor has analyzed several synopses and summarized them, which is original research. Regards, MartinRe 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is a sub-article branched off from the main article. The sources were/are listed in the main article. The branch off was done on account of the main being listed as too big and recommended for split. I thought the source info being there made listing them [in the sub-article] inappropriate. -- User:Jason Palpatine 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

A lot of what Maury is objecting to (and I agree with) is what is called original research. Put very simply, Wikipedia policy on original research is that:

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

In the context of this article, statements such as "He was not totally unprepared for this..." and "the monolith watches the new visitor plunge into the Jupiter system to put itself in orbit. For some time the two observe each other" cannot simply come from the head of the user writing it. They must first be written in a reputable verifiable source, such as a film review or critique. Wikipedia is not the place to write lengthy stylistic plot analyses for films. Those things are more suited for personal WebPages. Wikipedia is simply not a publisher of original thought. -- Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the material did NOT come out of my head -- but Wikipedia copyright policies do demand that I use my own words! There are plenty of materials out there already published that cover and make mention of the various facts I have laid out here. My opinion was what I believed you wanted and I gave it.

My sources are list above.

When he made his decision, fuddlemark wrote:

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

?

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

OK. Lets go over it again:

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

Accusation -- Original Research.

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

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

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

Accusation -- Unencyclopedic tone.

• What, exactly, is this supposed to mean? There is nothing in the Wikipedia about it. The article is a recitation of a series of events. What about that could be considered “unencyclopedic?” This accusation is nonsense.

When my edits to the article came under ATTACK, I defended my position. I presented clear, concise arguments – whereupon I was accused of original research. I responded to this false accusation by citing my sources of information -- which were labeled "irrelevant"! That is called hypocrisy.

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps -- Jason Palpatine 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) ^{speak your mind}

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

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

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

Is there no one who will give this request of mine a clear point for point response? -- Jason Palpatine 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. WP:NOT reader's digest. And please people, brief comments -- nobody wants to read these long essays. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How can I be brief when trying to present facts countering a series of untrue accusations? With al the facts i have presented, how can you ignore the truth? -- Jason Palpatine 10:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• For disclosure, note that I called for this article's deletion in the original debate. Based on my reading of Mr, Palpatine's comments above, I see no actual refutation of the arguments, but instead a fundamental misunderstanding of those original arguments. On the issue of sources, the author seems to have, rather than summarising the interprations of others, he's taken those as a basis for his own interpration of the film. He does not seem to understand the "no original research" and neutral point of view policies, nor the way consesus forming discussion works on Wikipedia. Personally, I thought his analysis was interesting and unique, and really, deserves to be published somewhere. However, that somewhere is simply not Wikipedia. This article was redundant and in violation of core policies, it should not be restored. I believe that Mr. Palpatine could be a valued contributor to Wikipedia, but he still has much to learn.--SB | T 02:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Disclosure? Huh? Redundant and in violation of core policies? Sorry, but if that is the case, what was the point of the too big/split flag then? -- Jason Palpatine 06:34, 13 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)
• Endorse closure of the second deletion debate. I find no process problems in that discussion nor do I find any evidence of bias. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

06 June 2006

Image:WikiPâques.png

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

• 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)

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)