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".

19 June 2006

Sick Nick Mondo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick Nick Mondo

The decision of delete has led to the article causing problems among wrestling notability requirements as the wrestler in question, Nick Mondo, has had a DVD about his wrestling career released and is filming documentaries on wrestling. He is also, among the indy and hardcore wrestling scenes, considered especially notable. The article has then been pointed to as a sort of "if Nick Mondo wasn't worthy of an article then X isn't worth either". Another issue is the article already exists at Nick Mondo and can't be made into a redirect because it was protected. --- Lid 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge contents of Sick Nick Mondo into Nick Mondo and redirect. The existence of the article at Nick Mondo was not mentioned on the AfD, and as such it is reasonble to presume the voters in this low-participation AfD were not aware of it. Both "Nick" and "Sick Nick" articles contain assertions of notablity, but there are different ones such that I feel there is information to merge. I think a redirect from one to the other would be fine, I take the "do not redirect" comment in the afd to be referring to earlier suggestion that it should be redirected to Brownian motion. Redirects from nicknames are standard practice - see Category:Redirects from alternate names, I don't think the redirect will need protecting. Thryduulf 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See above: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm agreeing with the close, and commenting on why I think it was valid (I did not vote at AfD but can see the deleted content). Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.

This user is interested in drugs.

This user is not interested in drugs.

Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just recreate it in userspace. DRV isn't necessary for that. See WP:GUS; it might even already be there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Userfy if not already userfied; Endorse closure if already userfied. jgp (T|C) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've posted the last three versions of this template before it was deleted. They're rather different from one another. Note the first links to a user category that probably ought to be deleted along with most user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though it would be nice if history can be preserved when it is being userfied. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering over 750 users link to this template, it would be nice to at least have a redirect of some sort if it is to be recreated in user space. The first version above is the correct one. --Pascal666 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. And re-point the existing links to the new location (perhaps per AWB?). CharonX/talk 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and put in the triage section at the bottom of TfD until user pages are modified by a bot. Ansell 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted from template space per T2 and German solution. Someone may userfy by all means per German solution, if that has not already been done. Metamagician3000 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore/Move to user space and then delete the template page or replace it with Template:GUS UBX to (after correcting links, of course). —Mira 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per the fact that this is not T1 and per Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion. -- Where 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS to preserve history. Though this userbox should not exit in template namespace any longer. Acceptable replacement of {{deletedpage}} is {{GUS UBX to}}. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS. Guess we have to cleanup and recover the wounded from some of the past battles. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant [who has no contributions whatsoever other than his stance on this subject], Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon[ymous] comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.

  What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?

  And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirt pudding

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding

• Undelete and comment The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Wikipedia obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. Baked Alaska).
• Endorse closure, keep deleted.There is a consensus—one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus—that recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is not comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in most comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back at least to 1921. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the WP:V and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports 1210 pages on Baked Alaska and six on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closing admin: I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding, and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A5. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks. There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's. Geogre 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Makharinsky

• Delte and comment. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a review for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. Interlingua ^talk 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (again) of self-evident vanispamcruftisement. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, Dezhnev (talk · contribs), is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, User:GOY2006, is also Makharinsky. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. Metros232 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse properly closed AfD. Keep deleted. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar, the quoted result was keep, but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.

So Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD without prejudice. In this case I think the closing comment: "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting" seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. NoSeptember 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. Metamagician3000 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) Will (message me!) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus is probably right conclusion by the deleting admin but deleting the article this way and said it was a result of AfD is wrong. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This entry has now been recreated and redirected to Daily Kos by User:Hipocrite. I don't have issues with the action, but I have issues that the action was taken without/against consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The redirect isn't sufficient, imo, because that page doesn't contain the information from the blanked page (and shouldn't). If/when the page is recreated it will probably need to be protected from User:Armandoatdailykos, but that's another issue to take up later. Dori 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  DRV is not the place to pick the version of the article. I think people mean to say, undelete the history, let people edit the page, and start a discussion on the talk page to decide what the article should look like, or if it should be a redirect. NoSeptember 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I guess that's shorthand for "Unprotect so that it can be reverted to the last unblanked version". Reverting is not an admin job, unprotecting is. ~ trialsanderrors 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh? Reverting is not an admin's job? Perhaps I am misreading your post here... KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  I parsed that as, "any editor can do the reverting, once the article is unprotected, but it takes an admin to unprotect it. Reverting isn't an admin's job specfically." It's not a comment on what admins can and cannot do. · rodii · 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, rodii. ~ trialsanderrors 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mooted by recreation in appropriate version without GFDL violations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • False The minimum required is to undelete the history of this article, so that comments can be properly merged into "Daily Kos" when it is agreed as to what is proper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

Overturn And Keep:As I stated in the dicussion for propsed deletion against the NN statement a(fter I figured out how to get there)I showed an excerpt of a NYT article that stated the band.It said: I have changed the page because look I just joined and still finding out what happens.For the non notable band issue I have an excerpt for the New York Times which states the band.(NYT Article):

Like MTV, it is starting to create stars that glow brightly within its own universe. The band Hollywood Undead, which did not exist three months ago, has achieved celebrity thanks to MySpace. "We were just a bunch of loser kids who sat around our friend's house all day, and we started making music and recording it on computer," one of its vocalists, Jeff Phillips, said.

About two months ago the group posted a page on MySpace decorated with pictures of all seven members disguised in hockey masks and other forms of concealment. They also included a few original songs, a fusion of heavy metal and hip-hop. "In a matter of weeks it got huge, and it kept on getting bigger and bigger," said Mr. Phillips, whose left earlobe was splayed open enough to accommodate a hollow ring the size of a wedding band.

"It's been maybe nine weeks, and we've had over a million plays. We have 60,000 people who listen to it every day. It's crazy. If you look at our page, it's like we're a huge band that's toured a hundred times."

Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract."

This can be found on their myspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogPHman (talk • contribs) ."

I didn't know half of the things people were stating as I am a new user.I KNOW THAT DOESN"T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO IGNORENCE BUT PLEASE ONE MISTAKE FORGIVE ME.Please recreate the article as I didn't mean to vandalize or create any problems.Thank you for your time.

• Relist:Had proven wrong the NN charge against the band NYT Article on Myspace BlogDogPHman 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• The correct link for the blog entry above is [1]. This is an article in the New York Times about Myspace generally which briefly mentions the band, not an article about the band itself. This is the fifth time an article has been created for this band, and it's been through AfD, with the consensus of "delete". There was considerable discussion of whether the band was notable because of its presence on Myspace, and the conclusion was that it wasn't. That conclusion might be worth re-examining, but we went through a full AfD back in April. And the band still hasn't actually issued an album, although they keep talking about doing so. I suggest leaving them deleted until they meet some WP:BAND criteria. Maybe someday they'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone without ever having issued their music on a physical record medium. But they're not there yet. --John Nagle 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This version in my opinion goes much further in adressing concerns of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall article quality, and it was deemed unfit for Wikipedia by an AfD consensus; I have no reason to suspect anything went wrong during the AfD, nor do I feel that this NYT article presents any claim of notability not formerly addressed in the AfD. In essence, Wikipedia exists to document bands and individuals that have already acheived fame, not to help bands acheive fame (as is MySpace's purpose). Unless some new evidence can be presented, I see no reason to restore. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with AmiDaniel's analysis. Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. I think the five previous AfDs pretty clearly prove consensus on this issue. Deleuze 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract." - in other words, they have zero records released. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, should be speedy deleted on sight. Extreme keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: At least this band makes its money online, so it makes sense that they'd believe that Wikipedia is a good place to increase visibility, but it isn't. Some MySpace bands are going to be huge, some became huge, but we should be behind the curve and inherent conservative and non-speculative, if we're a reference work at all. WP:MUSIC therefore requires records, record deals, and distribution (getting the platters in the Wal*Mart). When that happens, it will be time for the backward-reporting Wikipedia article. Geogre 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

16 June 2006

Sadullah Khan

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadullah Khan

The AfD on this biography received very few votes. In total, exactly two "delete" votes from registered editors (and one from an anonymous IP). I came across the AfD and article five days later than the other voters, and realized that although the article was badly written, it addressed a distinctly notable person who very easily passes both the "author test" and the "professor test". I voted "strong keep", and also cleaned up the article at least enough to more clearly indicate the notability of Mr. Khan. A version that I have further touched up (slightly) is temporarily at: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sk

In my comment, I specifically requested that the closing admin at least extend the vote, if not simply close it as "no consensus". Given that the registered editors at most split 2 del/1 keep, "no consensus" would be the right action even without the request. But given that there's is no evidence that the original 2 delete voters looked at the cleaned up article, a deletion just seems premature. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Shane should have an article because he is a noteable and respectable australian journalist60.225.117.215 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis should be allowed to have an article because he is a highly noteable and very well respected Australian journalist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.117.215 (talk • contribs)

Note: Even though I believe this should be overturned, it appears this anon editor made an error and is discussing a different article. LotLE×talk

• Relist, given how few editors commented and how much work was done on the article during the AFD. -- Vary | Talk 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - closure was within discretion, and I'm not critical of it, but with so few votes and now a cogent challenge to the outcome, I think a further AfD with opportunity for a better debate is the safe way to go. Metamagician3000 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLE and MM3K ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reasonable notability has been established; articles deserves another chance. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I have no idea about the notability but I do feel the article deletion debate should have been resulted in "no consensus" --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, I nominated it. It was an oversight on my part not actually including a Delete. That would have made three registered users... and considering the wording of my nom, the admin may have just counted it as a delete vote anyway. If the person who asked for review has rewritten the article, then let him recreate it. I do not have a problem with him doing that, but I don't see a reason to overturn this AFD because IMO, the admin made the right decision at the time. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLe and MM3K. The article was significantly improved during the AfD to the extent the early votes can be discarded as out-of-date. Even without this, I would have either relisted or closed as no-consensus. Thryduulf 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

File:944 h.jpg

This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "Courtesy of Indiana University." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name? I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. --Jpbrenna 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted from Commons, and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at Deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually can now Will (message me!) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woa! Well, would you look at that! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Wikipedia Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. CharonX/talk 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• The image deletion is recent enough to make undeletion possible. I think the best action would be to contact User:Essjay (who deleted it), and make you case directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stone_Trek
• Overturn and Keep As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting WP:WEB, as it only needs to meet one of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [2], it was featured on G4TechTV [3], and even William Shatner plugs it on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at Newgrounds.com as well as StarLand.com, who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:WEB.

And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. MikeWazowski 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. Deleuze 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really asserting that the website for the Sci-fi Channel isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - Motor (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial works is the wording jeff. It's worded that way for a reason. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from outside the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - Motor (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - clearly meets WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in a new AFD (preferably) or Overturn and keep (per User:MikeWazowski's comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting WP:WEB that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. BigDT 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, WP:POINT accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
• The external links provided that supposedly meet WP:WEB did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that Site of the Week is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (Hahnchen) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Wikipedia articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. On G4TV.com, Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called plug by the All-Bran Man, which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive third from the bottom.
• As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of WP:WEB says "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - within discretion. Metamagician3000 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - Hahnchen 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Valid closure by deleting admin, no reason to overturn. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Hahnchen. — Mike • 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the mention on scifi.com does not meet WP:WEB. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - Nothing looks unusual or improper in AfD. ` LotLE×talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A spin-off of a spin-off cannot borrow the notability of the original: the cartoon version of "Joanie Loves Chachi" can't get "Happy Days"'s numbers. WP:WEB is not satisfied. Geogre 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber combat

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat
• Overturn and delete. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of WP:NOR — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it isn't a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
  • "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
  • "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
  • "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
  • "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
  • "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
  • "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
  • "It's interesting!"
  • "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
  • "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
  • "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
  • "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — Mike • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. Deleuze 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -R. fiend 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a Star Wars Insider ref and actual books Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? Kotepho 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, R. fiend seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - there was an obvious consensus to keep. MaxSem 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in WP:V, which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - this link in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own Star Wars Insider magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various Star Wars novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. MikeWazowski 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the quality of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — Mike • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[4] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[5], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[6], "More editing and cleanup can help."[7], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[8]. Also it should be noted that the nominator was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[9].
  Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, Yanksox ^(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. EVula 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - Motor (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. Kotepho 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. BryanG^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close. Properly closed based on the discussion. --JJay 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close per BryanG. —Mira 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. BigDT 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close followed policy.Geni 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per MikeW. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. Metamagician3000 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per consensus in AfD --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Original Research. --Improv 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —Mira 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to Wookiepedia, which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on fencing. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --John Nagle 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--Eloquence* 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Captainktainer * Talk 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. Barnas 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox (animator)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.

• Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board was deleted out of process and page protected by two admins, Nandesuka and Cyde. The former admits to ignoring all rules in deleting the page [10] while the latter provokes a Wikipedia:Wheel_war by undoing the actions of another administrator, Haukurth, that had the project restored because the original deletion was out of process. Cyde's justification of his actions is that the project is "crap". However, many editors and administrators pointed out that the project did not meet any of the CSD criteria. See the long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. A MfD was opened for the project, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board, but it was closed only 4 hours after it started when the normal procedure is 8 days. The result was declared a "speedy delete" by admin JDoorjam who voted for Deletion in the less than 4 hour debate. Objections were raised in the MfD to having the project deleted. As the founder of the Wikipedia:Conservative notice board, I would have liked to comment in the debate as well but I was away during that short period of time. Regardless of the MfD, admin Cyde deleted the project while the debate was still active at 16:57, June 15, 2006 (UTC) [11], surprising admin JDoorjam, who closed the debate at 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

Proposal: Restore the project page because of its out of process deletion. --Facto 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: The Wikipedia:Conservative notice board was modelled after the Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board. Project description: This is the LGBT/conservative notice board, for Wikipedians interested in articles related to LGBT/conservative topics. It should be noted that this is intended to be a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not a noticeboard solely for the use of LGBT/conservative Wikipedians. --Facto 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't care if it stays or goes, I was solicited to join up with it, but it wasn't a speedy candidate, so overturn and list at MfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - This page is a perfect example of a page that is used as a tool for ballot stuffing and political organising. It is not the only page that should go for these reasons, but it should be gone, and is presently gone for good reason. Pages like this that are destructive enough to the community need to be buried, and VfD is not the place to discuss it. --Improv 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; no good reason for keeping it, would be deleted by MfD anyway. Also a blatant POV noticeboard; there's no such thing as a exclusively conservative issue. A politics noticeboard would be better, as proposed on ANI. Johnleemk | Talk 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and seal with concrete. Such boards compromise NPOV fundamental principle of wikipedia and carry a big potential risk for misuse. -- Drini 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - vote-stuffing "noticeboards" harm the project and should be removed, with or without discussion. It is clear that the board was nothing more than an organized attempt at meatpuppetry. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This sort of thing has no place on wikipedia. --pgk^(talk) 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:IAR isn't necessary; this is enforcement of WP:NPOV, very clearly. -- SCZenz 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and let the community have a debate about it. NPOV doesn't apply outside article space. moink 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We have no need for a "WikiProject POV Pushing". --Carnildo 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Almost all my points were first raised at the administrative noticeboard, I'm summarizing what seems to me the most important parts of that discussion in order to explain my conclusion. This page had the same structure as Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. (This comparison board is now under MfD.) That would be reason to let the MFD run. However, the page creator appears to have violated WP:SPAM. To my eyes this is enough to endorse speedy deletion solely because of WP:SPAM violation despite parallel structure. The salting violates Wikipedia:Protection_policy#A_permanent_or_semi-permanent_protection_is_used_for:. (There is a counter argument citing WP:SALT that is easily overcome by reading the entire sentence cited.) By the time deletion review finishes, we'll have had an effective temporary protection. I agree that this protection does not meet permanent protection standards, so overturn only protection. Other boards were mentioned in the the ANI discussion, if the MFD for LBGT results in deletion they should receive MFDs also. If the LBGT MFD results in a keep, then the title could be well used, and should be unprotected for that purpose. GRBerry 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll admit I've only been here for six months, but could you explain why telling people about a group that highlights articles of a particular interest meets the WP:SPAM policy? The only part of that article I can find that some might think applies is "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Which Facto most certainly did not do. DavidBailey 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  Telling people in general wouldn't have been a problem. A notice at the "New pages seeking contributors" section of Wikipedia:Community Portal would have been fine. So would have been putting notice up on a couple of highly watched talk pages (say, the abortion/pro-life article talk pages). The problem is the mass invitations to editors that "identify as a conservative Wikipedian" (quote from the invitations). These are people already known to have a certain point of view. Immediately, they are targetted to participate on the discussion of this community portal, ultimately to participate in the various action items. It would have been poor form and risk of a spam block for Facto, but probably not a problem for the notice board, had he gone through the 20 most recent contributors of major edits to a couple of relevant articles. GRBerry 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Should have gone through MfD normally. I don't know why people think it's better to speedy delete, annoy a bunch of people, and have it out on DRV/ANI etc. for 2 weeks when it could just go to MfD for a week. --W.marsh 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. I find it very odd that it's okay to have interest groupings about geography or sexual orientation, but not about political views. Considering that anyone can be part of any of them and monitor its activities, assuming that an interest group about political issues is automatically going to be abused seems not well thought out. And if Wikipedia policy is what is driving some admins to determine that it should be removed, at least the policies should be followed when deleting it, don't you think? DavidBailey 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD. The speedy looks to me like it was a spur-of-the-moment thing sparked by the potential political aspect of the situation, which is understandable yet probably not the best response to the situation. Having said that, I'm concerned about having boards like this for *any* type of advocacy or organizing - the LGBT board looks like it could (not saying it HAS, or that its role is intended this way) be a flashpoint for vote-stacking and other problems. If we were to have general notice boards for broad topics - such as the Politics notice board someone suggested - it might work out. Tony Fox (speak) 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy restore and reopen the MfD. DRV is not for discussing whether something belongs on WP or not, it's for discussing whether the deletion was within the bounds of policy. I'd like for someone to cite a speedy deletion criteria that justifies the early closure of the MfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think it is normally reasonable to close the xFD for a speedy deleted x. That happens all the time for AFDs. I'm not looking closely enough into the timing to know when the closure occured in the sequence of delete-restore-delete&salt. If prior to the first restore, the closure is reasonable. If after the restore, the closure may not be appropriate. GRBerry 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted or rename it and recreate it with less of a polarizing philosophy behind it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Recreated (not by me) as Wikipedia:Politics notice board. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  That was me. I suggested it at WP:AN/I and there seemed to be a generally favorable reaction so I went ahead. Still can use some polishing, but there shouldn't be any 'NPOV' issues if it covers all sides of the spectrum. --CBD 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I am cautiously optimistic that the politics notice board will not serve a harmful role to the encyclopedia. --Improv 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I, however, am more doubtful. Take a look at the "Articles with disputes" section: Ann Coulter, Pro-life, Homosexual agenda, Special rights, Nuclear family, Gay rights opposition. Exploding Boy 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Feel free to add some of your own. Many of these political articles have become fairly POV-biased and need exposure to a wider audience and further editing work. DavidBailey 03:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for obvious reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Which obvious reasons? The out-of-process speedy? The incomplete MfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The creator of this project, despite his claims, revealed his purpose for forming the noticeboard when he spammed over 50 editors with the following message (emphasis mine):

  Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board.

  I only regret that I exercised leniency and did not give Facto a block for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. I ignored all rules and deleted it because I honestly thought the deletion would be absolutely uncontroversial given the clear and patent POV-pushing nature of the project. I hold no rancor towards those who want to run it through the whole process, but it's clear that even most of those who wanted to see this go through MfD planned to vote "delete." So let's just skip to the part where we agree that while POV pushing happens, we shouldn't provide a home for it on the Wikipedia namespace. Nandesuka 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW should never be cited, certainly not in a situation like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Was obviously not a good-faith creation, but rather was spurred by the VFD page on Opposition to homosexuality. Exploding Boy 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion partisan vote-stacking effort. Deletion was quite appropriate. -M^ask 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - there shouldn't be a noticeboard for a specific POV. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE: this has been recreated by the same person as Wikipedia:Politics notice board and deleted under G4. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wrong, Tony, I did not recreate the project. Another admin moved the page and restored it. I suggest you apologize immediately for wheel warring and undo your harmful and disruptive actions to Wikipedia. --Facto 03:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll make no apology for redeleting that trash, though had I known that it had been undeleted rather than recreated I would not have done so. Since that is a technicality and the page must remain deleted, I will not restore it. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Tony? Apologize for harmful and disruptive actions? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week. Jay Maynard 11:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fine, but G4 doesn't apply to speedies directly, or we'd never be able to resurrect anything speedied since it'd be a recreation. Thus the appearance of the "met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place" bit (which got rather masticated in the refactoring of CSD a while back) - a re-speedy under pseudo-G4 is, in fact, a speedy under some other criterion. I'm not just ruleslawerying; the usual intent of G4 is to keep e.g. AfD'd material deleted, rather than arbitrarily speedied material. -Splash - tk 02:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    G4 applies to all valid deletions. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Tony, I think you may be over-reacting. You could have just as easily removed any of the postings in the politics notice board that you thought were not appropriate, made suggestions and otherwise help it evolve into something reasonable. People were acting on good faith, based on discussion. People network all the time in many ways. As long as they engage in discussion with others, networking is not a bad thing. -- Samuel Wantman 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record (again), >I< undeleted and rewrote the page following discussion at AN/I and here which seemed to be in favor of the idea. I then indicated that I had done so here, on ANI, and on the talk page of the notice board itself. As to the whole 'G4' argument... are we seriously process-lawyering over how the process applies to situations where the process is being ignored? We tossed process out the window when this was deleted... and again when most of the deletion reviewers did not respond on the basis of whether normal process was followed. We could debate whether or not 'Conservatism' and 'Politics' are "substantially identical" (e.g. 'G4'), but I'd really rather just fix this before the disruption gets any worse. Is a 'Politics notice board' really 'more biased' than a 'LGBT notice board'? So much so that it must be nuked on sight rather than improved to a more neutral presentation? --CBD 10:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Some admins are so busy deleting that I think it has been missed that a great solution has been presented that I believe will work. See Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board#New Version. Basically, create the Political notice board, then create sub-pages related to specific areas of interest within politics- IE- minimum wage, abortion, etc. This way, they are not liberal or conservative, and are both neutral while allowing those who are interested in a specific political topic to maintain a board on that specific topic. DavidBailey 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore as per DavidBailey --Strothra 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD per Tony Fox. Why, exactly, was this a candidate for speedy deletion the first time? Jay Maynard 02:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore All these cabals um, groups joined together by common interests ought be deleted, but deleting some but not others, seemingly based upon the sociopolitical perspectives of the deleting admins rather than according to a consistent application of policy, would be the very worst outcome. I'll change my stance if and when equally partisan - and, frankly, more controversial and less mainstream - projects appear to be on their way to deletion.Timothy Usher 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh n03s! Teh C4BALZ! --mboverload@ 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Hope that works for you.Timothy Usher 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Restore and discuss. Because this has been moved to a more neutral setting, it is no less worthy of respect than Wikipedia:Schoolwatch. While I disagree with ballot stuffing, I have no issue with a place where people of common interests can gather. Denni ☯ 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD - where I would be inclined to vote "delete", but not until I've had a chance to have a good look at it and think about the debate. Metamagician3000 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore - invalid speedy delete candidate, needs community input. Davodd 05:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted BUT -- Hipocrite made a very good suggestion during the MfD that got utterly lost in the noise. I suggested burning the thing and starting anew; He said, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism seems like a good place to do so. Allow me to suggest that articles like Edmund Burke, Conservatism and Social Darwinism would be GOOD articles to focus on. This makes sense to me -- and is far more in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps this would be a good idea, but for the circumstances after the spamming, where we have a posse of political conservatives gathered by the spammer, all looking for a suitable page to use for networking. This has to be stamped out first, then in a few months, if there is a group of historians or politican scientists on Wikipedia who want to form such a wikiproject, let them go ahead. --Tony Sidaway 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not encourage elitism on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's slogan is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Editors should not have to be historians or "politican scientists" [sic] to form a WikiProject about conservatism. I would also like to know how such a group could exist without the use of invitations. And why would we need to wait months to start a WikiProject? I created the project in one day and it was deleted out of process in less than half a day. --Facto 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (repeated from above) Some admins are so busy deleting that I think it has been missed that a great solution has been presented that I believe will work. See Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board#New Version. Basically, create the Political notice board, then create sub-pages related to specific areas of interest within politics- IE- minimum wage, abortion, etc. This way, they are not liberal or conservative, and are both neutral while allowing those who are interested in a specific political topic to maintain a board on that specific topic. DavidBailey 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore for out-of-process deletions. Without ever having seen it, it seems to me more likely than not that it has no place on Wikipedia, but it certainly merits a full *fD debate. Sandstein 06:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted And repeat my suggestion that if people are interested in conservative topics, they link to Edmund Burke, not to Ann Coulter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly object to these out of process speedy deletions. They cause far more harm to Wikipedia than having a 'bad' page hang around for a few days. It should have been left to go through the MFD process, so restore and send to MFD. Petros471 09:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Per Metamagician, Petros471, W.Marsh, et al, restore and send to MfD as these speedy deletions are divisive. Technically a case could be made that it qualifies under some CSD or another but that case hasn't been made here yet to my satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per DavidBailey. Also, performing an out-of-process speedy deletion should be grounds for immediate desysopping--it's one of the most gratuitious abuses of admin powers possible. jgp (T|C) 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This page has no connection, however remote, with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free social networking site. Sysop actions were reasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not endorse the deletion, however, as it was clearly intended as a vote-stacking device, keep deleted BigDT 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a foothold for POV-pushing and factionalism that we don't need, and Nandesuka was right to delete it. JDoorjam Talk 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - And I'm kind of sad to see so many people valuing process over fundamental policies like "Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia". Process changes over time, the goal does not. This page was a transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism and deserved its fate. --Cyde↔Weys 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem I'm having with this, Cyde, is that other noticeboards, including the one upon which this was based, are also "transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism[s]". As Tom harrison said on the noticeboard, we tend to see this more clearly when we disagree with the message presented. Others may take issue with process, about which I've no opinion. My questions are about purpose. It's hard to imagine a more efficient way to manipulate Wikipedia content across a very large number of pages than by allowing some partisan factions to thrive while others are, by whatever process, deleted. I hate to say it, but this is how this looks to me. Applying clear and consistent standards would remove the appearance of partiality.Timothy Usher 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hello, can we just close this now? It's embarrassing to see this bad faith appeal against the deletion of a blatantly bad faith attemot to enlist Wikipedia for a partisan cause drag on, and more and more editors being hauled into it honestly believing, in that face of incontrovertible evidence of malice, that the proponent intended something other than what he actually did: to gather together a bunch of people he personally had identified as politically biased with the intent of influencing Wikipedia. Let's just delete this and salt the earth. Too many of us have bee misled and lied to. Failing that, let's go to Jimbo and ask for guidance. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whose appeal you considered bad faith, but mine is certainly not. I wholly concur with the your sentiment regarding this particular noticeboard, but I'd suggest we compile a list of all allegedly similar noticeboards, Guilds and Alliances to be considered as a group.Timothy Usher 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, go to policy and try to establish a policy outlawing them all. But here we have a palpable, incontrovertible example, not some wild handwaving accusations, of one page created and populated out of bad faith. Let's deal with this and move on, knowing that the principle is a good one, to wipe out the others. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. There has been at least one admin who claimed to justify a userbox deletion on the ground of consistency; if that's his goal, then I would expect those other noticeboards to receive the same treatment as this one at his hands. Jay Maynard 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If you know the admin. ask him (if he didn't vote to delete this one) why he didn't vote to delete this one. Wikipedia is not consistent--that's a given. We don't refrain from doing the right thing just because somebody else didn't do the right thing. There lies the road to partisanship. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not naming him because the specific admin is not relevant; I'll let him step forward if he wishes (preferably with a speedy delete of the other pages, whatever they may be). Jay Maynard 23:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well you make an accusation against one admin and choose to generalise that to all admins by implication. You refuse to name that admin, but did you, at the time, bring the problem to his attention? If none of these is true I would happily suggest that your accusation is worthless and that, lacking the good faith to identify the case, you yourself are engaged in a bad faith action, smearing all administrators by the reported action, which you refuse to substantiate, of a single administrator. I suggest that you withdraw your accusation, having refused outright to support it. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Okkay, fine. User:Metamagician3000, care to comment, since you're the one who cited consistency as a desirable thing? (If you look, you'll see that he agreed with my proposed resolution of this DRV.) Now, Tony, would YOU care to retract YOUR accusation of bad faith? I tried to avoid dragging that other admin into this, but since you insisted... Jay Maynard 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I do think that pages such as this belong at MfD, and that's how I voted above, and how I would probably vote in similar cases. But I also realise this one was deleted in good faith by a respected admin after due consideration, and on grounds that I have some sympathy for. End of story, really. Metamagician3000 02:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony, of couse, being that this would likely be close to gone at this point had the MfD been allowed to run its course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The spam message of its creator pretty much let the cat out of the bag as to the reason for its creation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and permit the full discussion at MfD. It's impossible to rationally discuss this w/o seeing it.--Kchase02 T 03:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Seems detrimental to the interests of a NPOV Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Recommend larting for overturn voters. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted with fire and extra brimstone. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the danger of vote stacking, coordinating edit wars and such, even unintentionally, is too great. I'm not too crazy about some of the projects/noticeboards used as comparisons, either. -- Kjkolb 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted... can't endorse this deletion enough. While the nominator notes that this is very similar to the LGBT project, it's telling that there is no anti-LGBT project. If we vote Keep on this project, there will undoubtedly be a Liberal project created in retaliation, and it can only go south after that. --kizzle 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Over at WP:AFD, they're holding slow, reasoned debates over articles much less worthy than this one. This page is far too controversial for the speedy procedure. Admins should confine themselves to using them only in uncontroversial situations. Vadder 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Why are we voting? Instead of having a discussion? In particular, why are we voting in the only wikipedia venue that only requires 50%+1 to delete something? Restore, relist, talk. - brenneman ^{L} 04:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I do see a lot of discussion about. --Cyde↔Weys 04:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: vote stacking/edit war vehicle; record of spam violations. This is appropriate for usenet, not an encyclopedia. Fireplace 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted:vote stacking and spam violations. Come on guys, you know better than that. Thetruthbelow 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Drini, Fireplace, and discussion preceeding original deletion on AN/I[12] Disruptive, vote-stacking, created for a specific agenda, does nothing to improve and much to inflict harm upon the Encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per Facto. Either delete all or allow all pages devoted to specific interests, whether they be conservative or gay/lesbian or, as I just discovered, Iranian. --Mantanmoreland 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Atromitos

Was speedily deleted, but after reviewing the history I cannot find the reason why. Tone seems to be inactive, so I'm bringing it here. Conscious 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Odd. User:MetroStar dumped a whole bunch of incorrect tags on it ({{copyright}}{{spam}}{{advertisement}}{{copyright}}{{delete}}!) without an edit summary in sight. Tone then deleted, probably in one of the occasional lapses of checking histories etc. I can find no evidence of copyright violation, and the circumstances are dubious to say the least, so I've restored and reverted. -Splash - tk 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, upon review, some large segments of Special:ContributionsMetroStar should not be trusted. -Splash - tk 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Close discussion, now undeleted by Splash. Sandstein 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Walk To Emmaus

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk To Emmaus
• Relist Only four editors commented on the article (3/1 for deletion) and there was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability. If the consensus is to endorse deletion I would appreciate a copy for my userspace, but idealy I think further discussion on AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• That is plenty to delete an article such as this, and there is no quorum for AfD. It was about some random "spiritual renewal program" that, at most, needed some mention in the article of the organisation that runs it for its 3 days [13], not the event of Biblical importance. Endorse deletion. -Splash - tk 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The organiization that runs it for it its three days Which one did you mean [14] [15] [16][17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] and that's just the communities in Texas that have their own web domains. What I would really like is for someone to explain to me more than just "nn delete". 10,000's of people have been on these reteats I think that makes them notable. Why do others think they are not? Eluchil404 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse it's enough - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• "There was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability"? There were no arguments presented for notability to discuss. None in the article, none in the AfD (Google searches and resulting hits are not a claim to notability, though Google can turn up reliable third-party sources, which can be), and none here so far. Endorse deletion at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 3 deletes, one redirect/cleanup. No serious arguments made either way. Deletion is acceptable, relisting for more input would have been acceptable, and anyone, including the nominator here, can do the redirect if they believe it appropriate. GRBerry 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - although this could usefully be recreated as a redirect to Emmaus--Aoratos 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually no, it should be redirected to Cursillo if anything, as it is the Methodist version of the program created because they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use the Cursillo name, among other things. It actually isn't a random religious thing, but as an offshoot of the Cursillo movement, it belongs in that article, or not at all. It is really not notable otherwise. It has nothing to do with actually "walking" or the town of Emmaus, so the above suggestion is illogical.pschemp | talk 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't illogical. I've no knowledge of the religious movement (it doesn't seem that notable - and others use the same name), however the phrase the 'walk to Emmaus' is notable as a common title for the pericope in Luke's narrative of the Resurrection. That's far more notable. Someone typing in 'walk to Emmaus' is much more likely to be looking for the material currently in the article Emmaus (or Resurrection appearances of Jesus) than this obscure group - so it should redirect there.--Aoratos 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Samuel Blanning and GRBerry for trying to explain. I'll try to track down some sources and create a better article. Any hints about what factors should go to notability: total participants, news coverage, web presence? Eluchil404 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard explanation for notability is Wikipedia:Notability. There are also eight specific topic guidelines and a number of essays or proposed guidelines linked in the navigation box on the right. The most relevant is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), but that is only a proposal in the process of forming consensus. I personally use a two part test - is there an explanation of why the topic is significant (a claim to notability) and is that claim verified in independent reliable sources? For independence, simple reprinting of press releases doesn't count, and neither do local program site websites. The first part of the test is enough to avoid speedy deletion, the second part is enough reason for me to keep in an AFD. GRBerry 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per GRBerry - the closing admin closed the AfD fairly. Kimchi.sg 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, handled justly. PJM 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks again to GRBerry for pointing me to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) which I had missed. Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? We don't need to hold a discussion of where it should redirect of DRV. Eluchil404 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus to delete, with 75% in favour. Seems like a fairly-dealt AFD. Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. No obvious reason to question sysop's judgement call. Nothing has changed significantly since the article was deleted that suggests that relisting would now give a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Per request, I've userfied the deleted content of this article to User:Eluchil404/Walk To Emmaus. If it should be decided, now or later, that the article should be restored, then the history of this page should be moved back into its original place. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within discretion. Metamagician3000 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

14 June 2006

Lost: The Journey

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey
• Overturn and delete. The final tally was six deletes, one transwiki, one merge/delete, and one keep. However, closing admin Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to act on his own initiative to countermand the consensus, stating instead there was no consensus because he felt that the one "keep" vote's reasoning was strong enough. I frankly don't follow his logic or understand what he found so notable about the one keep vote, but I think he's enforcing his own opinion over the decided-upon community consensus with this article, and thus appeal his decision here (as he invited people to do when closing the decision). — Mike • 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A review of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus does not appear to yield any means by which seven out of nine votes — votes that were very clearly not made in bad faith — can be entirely discarded by the closing admin. — Mike • 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that numerical majorities are final. The delete voters put limited effort into the discussion. One person puts some effort into a vote and someone complains that an article wasn't deleted by vote. Ansell 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• I welcome review of this one, because it was dicey for me when I made the call. I acknowledge that numerically, the margin was wide. I don't think any of the comments (NOT votes) were made in bad faith at all, and didn't diacount the sentiments, but I was quite convinced by the argument made by ArgentiumOutlaw and after all, this is a judgement call, not a nose count. Naturally I think I got to the right outcome and would say Keep kept. But I welcome input from my peers, and thank you in advance for it. (BTW I'm excited, because this is my first DRV!) ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean this respectfully, but when reviewing the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators document, I did not see anything within the document, barring bad faith situations, that allows an administrator to ignore the principle of rough consensus when making a decision closing a document. There is the paragraph that begins, "Some opinions can override all others," but the examples cited (copyvio, userfy, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV) do not seem to apply to the votes comments cast. — Mike • 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have some learnings from this I'll be posting later as well as more responses but I'll let some of those sit. I do have one thing I want to point out which you'll just have to take my word for. Several commenters here are saying I let my personal feeling convince me how to close. Well, in part, that's where judgement does need to come in, on a close call, add in your own feeling... that's sometimes right and proper in my view (if the alternative is to relist for consensus the third time or do nothing, for example). But in this case, my PERSONAL view, had I chose to commment (on a 5 day overdue for close nom) instead of close... would have been DELETE. Clips are a bit more notable than regular episodes but I do not think any show, even this one, needs an article for every episode. I overlooked that view, because thought at the time that the fact that MedCab/Com was working on this was a reason not to rush this, leave it around, and let them resolve it later. (others below point out that's not necessarily a really good reason...). Also, the medcab argument was made late in the discussion. Arguments made late, if not commented on by people that commented before they were aware of the facts, tend to carry more weight with me when judging consensus. And make no mistake, I was judging consensus without taking my personal desire to delete into account. If this goes back on AfD I'll leave it to someone else to close, so I can comment DELETE. I just don't think that was the right thing to do in view of the mediation thing. If it gets overturned, I'll delete it myself and happily, unless someone beats me to it. One BIG learning I have from this already is the need to explain in more detail when necessary (check out Splash's Phil Sandifer close explanation, it's a model. I hope to be that good someday)... ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, I fail to see what was so strong about the one keep comment that ruled out six delete comments. (Disclaimer: I voted delete in the AfD in question.) BryanG^(talk) 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Now that the article has been largely rewritten, I feel my original concerns no longer apply. Keep rewritten article; however I want it clear that I still do not endorse the original closure. Feel free to relist if you want, although I would now vote to keep. BryanG^(talk) 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Seven, actually. There was a merge/delete in there. — Mike • 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not really a valid vote. You can't merge *and* delete, the edit history needs to be preserved. Closers typically count those as keep votes, since they wanted to keep the content, just didn't understand the finer points of the GFDL. Transwiki votes go as keeps too, while we're at it, since the person also wanted to keep the content. --W.marsh 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And that's why I didn't count the merge/delete vote, although looking at it again I would interpret it as "merge if considered useful or delete". But then, I'm not an admin. It wasn't a straight delete comment anyway, so I'm not counting it as such. BryanG^(talk) 03:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks W.marsh. SO if we ARE insisting on counting votes here, it's 6:3. That's 66% which is a Keep No Consensus. I have a couple of other bones to pick here... first, Mike you keep talking about good faith, and I wish you would stop, because I saw no comments I judged to be in bad faith. Second, you keep citing the Deletion Guideline like it's a process that cannot be deviated from. It's not the law, it's a guide... and we admins are asked to use our judgement. I hope you have internalised that before you become an admin yourself. Third, you suggest I'm "enforcing my own opinion"... "countermanding consensus"... that's not at all fair, those terms are quite loaded, in my view anyway. What I did was look at the arguments made, look at the article and its contents, and made a considered judgement that there wasn't a consensus to delete. That's what the closing admin is supposed to do. This article was 4 days overdue for a decision and I've been thinking about it for some time (I looked at a lot of these on my lunch hour). I also asked some of my admin colleauges on IRC for their thoughts and they agreed with me that K-NC was the right outcome. I'm hopeful that some of them will pop in here. Maybe I'm wrong though and this really was a Delete. I'd like to learn from it if that's the case... but telling me to read something that's a guide, and that I've already read, isn't going to help me learn. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I am citing good faith solely in the context of the deletion guidelines citing bad faith as a valid reason to delete. I am not applying the concept of good or bad faith to your actions. I am bringing it up solely in the context of citing the relevant policy and guidelines that address the actions you take when closing a vote.

Second, I would again repeat my request for any Wikipedia policy or document that provides administrators with the freedom to use their judgment to make a decision that goes against rough consensus when making deletion closures. The relevant cites I can find indicate that in the deletion policy, it states, "At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains." Rough consensus is defined as outlined in this subsection, with a link to this Wikipedia article.

Third, were we to make the case that a vote, through some improper terminology, should not be included, it should not be included in the total when considering what proportion of the votes are delete votes. In other words, it is not that six out of nine votes were cast to delete, it is that six out of seven votes (85%) were cast to delete. But I really don't agree with those figures, either. That leads me into ...

Fourth, I disagree that the merge/delete vote should not be counted. The text of that vote states, "Merge anything useful into the main Lost article ... otherwise Delete if there is nothing that editors of that article consider to be useful." I believe the text of that vote quite effectively counts as a delete vote. That would make this seven out of eight votes (87.5%).

— Mike • 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since we don't count votes, it still doesn't matter. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was never my intention to count votes, I just did not find the one keep comment persuasive enough to close as "no consensus", given no one else shared this opinion. Of course, the rewritten article makes the whole thing moot for me. BryanG^(talk) 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure well within his discretion, especially considering you can argue that the votes were 3/9 in favor of keeping, and that's a marginal consensus to delete at best. Lar probably should have just said "no consensus" though - since that is different than closing as a pure keep (now more than ever, see the recent changes to Wikipedia:Speedy keep). --W.marsh 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Point of information, it was a Keep No Consensus not a pure keep. Both the close in AfD and the notice on the article talk say Keep No Consensus... ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. The article is bare, but this aired on ABC and Lost has lots of viewers. That lends enough notability that it can be mentioned somewhere imo, and AFD is not the best place to decide merging. Kotepho 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment You're commenting on content, not on process — see above: "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." — Mike • 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  I did both and there is plenty of commenting on content to go around on DRV. Kotepho 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Then I'd ask whatever admin who will review these items and make a decision to ignore your response, given that you're explicitly and self-admittedly not going by WP:DRV policy. — Mike • 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Policy wonking this way is probably not really appropriate here. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This has also been listed on today's AfD page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey (second nomination)). As far as I see, there has been no consensus to relist, so I've asked for it to be speedily closed pending the results of this DRV. BryanG^(talk) 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

*Overturn and delete - with all due respect to the closing admin, I reread ArgentiumOutlaw's point on AFD and I do not see what is convincing about it. He points out that the writer did a good job and that mediators are debating what to do with individual episode articles. Well, as to the first point, a "good job" is not a bar to deletion and as to the second point, unless I'm missing something, this is not an episode. For the benefit of those above debating my "merge and delete" vote (opinion, whatever), I didn't say "merge and delete". Please reread my comment. I said "Merge anything useful ... otherwise delete". In other words, "merge OR delete", not "merge AND delete". BigDT 04:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. I, too, fail to see what is so overwhelming about the sole keep vote, and part of the admin's comment -- I'd keep a clip show before a random episode, if I were commenting -- means that a peculiar personal preference was used as part of the reasoning. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I've read the original and the rewrite (which I hadn't before), and I'm astonished the the closing admin thought the original had the slightest shred of merit to it. The rewrite is better, but that's not saying much: a description of it as an hour-long "Previously on..." recap, with some OR analysis in the article to justify it as something meaningful. Confirm original vote. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, solid explanation from closing admin plus the fact that articles of this nature (major television episodes) are generally kept or merged. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist or delete. Only one keep vote, and its reasoning is extremely weak ("this is a well-written article" does not make the topic noteworthy, and "we're still discussing it" does not make it noteworthy either!); yes, admins are expected to use their judgment, not a raw votecount, to determine consensus, but this was a dubious closure.
  • Not sure who this was... We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'd have preferred if Lar had voted, rather than closing the discussion, since he clearly had a distinct opinion in his own right which, even if valid, didn't correspond to that of any of the users involved. Too often admins will close Deletion discussions in accordance with however they would have voted, rather than in accordance with the discussion itself. If your interpretation of what should be done with the article is unusual enough that people will be surprised by how you close the discussion, you'd probably be better off joining the discussion, so people can read and respond to your reasoning first, rather than just cutting it off with your opinion as the "last word". -Silence 05:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. Also, if I had been commenting I would have commented delete. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There were two points I was making when I voted to Keep. The second point I made was that the article shouldnt have been up for deletion, if you see Requests for mediation, you'll see that there is a mediation committee voting to determine whether or not "Lost episodes each deserve an individual article". If they decide on keeping all episodes in one big article, then the committee will override any AFD decisions made on that one article. Same with the opposite case (ie if they decide every episode deserves a seperate article). Their decision may actually make any decision we reach here useless. Ignoring that, the first reason I gave for keeping, was that I thought the information there was thorough, accurate, and useful. As for the final outcome of keep on the AFD, I personally think we should put aside our "common sense" and go with the majority vote, 'but' through all of my experiences with AFDs and the like, I've realized that in wikipedia votes don't really matter, discussion and consensus determines the victor. I wouldn't dare say that my argument is more sensible than the opposing side because they made an equally legitimate point. So it's really a judgment call on which side brought up the more solid argument. ArgentiumOutlaw 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the absence of a mediation ruling, you can still preserve the solo article in your user space. In either outcome, you would need to have the information at hand. However, no one part of the deliberative process can overturn another, as they should have different targets. The mediation is about whether in the future/final form, there should be a single or breakout presentation and shouldn't be concerned with "should this particular article be deleted." AfD shouldn't be saying anything much about whether the future should look like X or Y, but rather judging a single article in terms of the deletion policy. I.e. during a mediation, pretty much everything should have gone into a sort of escrow space. Geogre 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete. Closing comments an absolutely travesty. "We don't nose count" so I'm siding with a minority of one". Ridiculous. -- GWO

• The closing comments were, theoretically, in line with: a) policy, b) AfD closure best practices, c) using one's [expletive not inserted, but I'm tempted] brain. If you think that sort of comment is inappropriate, you should not be participating in AfD, because the sort of mindset you're displaying here is detrimental to the process and, as a result, Wikipedia as a whole. I would not have closed the way Lar did, but of all the reasons to overturn his close (some of them good), "the admin said what he was supposed to, but I didn't like it" appears not one, not twice, not even three times ... in fact, it doesn't appear at all. That's because it's a very stupid reason indeed. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Absolute travesty"? "Ridiculous"? Tell us how you really feel... ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete - Should have taken part in the discussion rather than just closed with his own saintly admin view. - Hahnchen 09:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Saintly? Thanks! But no. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Everyone knows I don't nose-count either, but there was a clear consensus for deletion. It is not the case that the 'merge and delete' and 'transwiki' opinions could count as 'keep'. "Transwiki" means "This shouldn't be on Wikipedia" and "Merge and delete" means "Some of this might belong in the main article but not here", and both amount to "This Wikipedia article should not exist". The sole keep argument wasn't remotely close to being powerful enough to overturn the near-unanimous consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The recreated article shouldn't be deleted, at least not as a G4 recreation, but my criticism of the closing stands. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as supported by all credible arguments to policy & guidelines in the AfD; transwiki to Lostpedia if GFDL compatibility allows and if they want it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete Reliance on single keep argument unconvincing Bwithh 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete I voted to transwiki in the original AfD thinking that it was possible to transwiki to Lostpedia. Apparantly it is not, so you can count my vote as a delete in the original AfD. —Mets501 (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: Lar was acting within his scope, but my feeling is that the article was weak enough or damaged enough that, at the very least, the article could not exist in that form and at that location and pass peer review in terms of the deletion policy. Sometimes we have to say, "Wikipedians are wrong, but we'll do the delete and work on getting the information presented in a better or more logical way." This would be one of those cases: people voting on AfD could be entirely wrong, but, in the absence of something really crazy, their wrong position should probably prevail. Geogre 12:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: my vote was the overturn and delete after the article is copied into user space pending the outcome of the mediation. I.e. delete, because AfD was clear, but I recommend that the authors and involved parties hold the material. We had a not dissimilar situation with articles on every cricket match in a year. Geogre 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We don't vote. But I agree that the mediation issue may not have been correctly interpreted by me at the time. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The closure statement makes clear that, rather than acting within discretion on the merits of the debate, the admin was effectively imposing his own views on it instead. Should have participated in it, in that case. Furthermore, the arguments to delete are easily as compelling as the argument given to keep, and though we don't nose count, we do pay attention to the reasons why a number of people may have reached the same conclusion. I should also say that I don't think a wriggle of "no consensus" applies here. There's an obvious enough consensus among the participants, it's just that the admin didn't like it too much. If Lar wanted to spin the debate his way, he should probably simply have declared a straight "keep". I just discovered from User talk:Lar that Lar discussed this with others in IRC. That's fine, but one should remember that being trendy and brutal and treating AfD as a stupid bunch of idiots is extremely fashionable there, and that decisions made based on who goes "yay" to earn a laugh on IRC are generally decisions made poorly and in haste. -Splash - tk 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfD can't really withstand such a completely different article. It would need a new debate. It's hardly for DRV to mandate an AfD of an article it was never asked to review; that's for an editor to do on their own initiative. So I think now there should be no action. -Splash - tk 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping you'll revise and extend your remarks to clarify some of the possibly misleading statements above in view of what we discussed on your talk page, Splash... ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, as per Mike and others above. It seems that a consensus in favor of deletion was ingnored. PJM 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Or, that when I evaluated it, I (possibly incorrectly) did not find consensus. Please assume good faith. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No stones thrown from this glass house - I do assume GF. Just commenting based on my perspective. PJM 17:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist on AfD, AfD isn't a straw count and no good reason was advanced for deletion. IMO, closing admin probably did the right thing. Still, retention/deletion could be argued either way... recommend a fresh AfD.--Isotope23 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete; I agree with Lar that 1 suggestion can override seven other ones. However, I do not find this particular one convincing at all. - Liberatore(T) 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Notice: The article has now substantially been re-written to address the issues it previously had, excising the Original Research, and adding verifiable, sourced content. It is no longer the same article that was AfDed.--Leflyman^Talk 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. That article is RADICALLY different/better than the one here: here which was the article as it appeared just after the first AfD notice was placed. But remember that DRV is fundamentally not about article content, it's more about process. This new article (and specifically the fact that the editors have done a lot to show why it's notable) should not be used to evaluate whether the close was right or not, or whether how I closed it could stand improvement. IMHO anyway. I closed based in part on the article as it was then, which was not very good compared to how it is now, and commenters should keep that in mind when commenting. If the old article had been deleted I think it would be hard to argue that the new one is "substantially identical" and subject to a speedy under CSD criteria, so that it's now a lot better is fundamentally not relevant to whether the close was good or not. It DOES however have bearning on how a new AfD might do. I stand behind my assertion that I would have personally advocated Delete on it as it was then, if I had been commenting and if it were not for the mediation issue (as I contemplated it at the time) ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it does have a bearing on those suggesting "Overturn and delete" as such a "vote" is based on the discussion of the merits of the original article that was in place during the AfD, which in effect, has been deleted. This new article has almost entirely different content-- and thus the deletion of it would now be improper. It may be appropriate to re-open discussion as a fresh AfD based on this new version. --Leflyman^Talk 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with respect to the article itself, the overturns now may be partly moot, or alternatively no one would justifiably complain about the new content being re-added if the article WERE deleted. I'm still interested in seeing this discussion run its course so that those folk wanting to offer good, constructive feedback to me can do so and I can improve. That means taking some less useful ("ridiculous", "saintly" (can I be both at once?!!)) feedback as well, but that's a small price to pay. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete: 6 votes of 9 for deletion and one vote for merge is conditional with deletion in mind. And only one vote to keep. IMO it's a clean consensus and article must be deleted. MaxSem 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep: wait to see result of mediation on the episodes. Lost is a high profile series, and if result is to keep details there, keeping this would be consistent. Also, it's good to see "Not a vote" being carried through once in a while. Stephen B Streater 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure In terms of discussion, which is ultimately what AFD is, we have nobody who specifically referenced policy or guidelines and showed meeting or failure, so the strongest possible arguments were not made. The keep reference to a mediation is stronger than any of the other arguments made, most importantly stronger than the two subsequent arguments. (It is acceptable for the closing admin to assume that prior commentators were not aware of that mediation request.) Strength of reasoning is more important than strength of numbers, and no consensus equals keep. If the mediation fails, there is nothing to prevent sending this for another AFD, where the failure of the mediation would remove that argument. GRBerry 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is no law against re-listing this article for deletion if you disagree with the outcome. Silensor 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's moot now as the article has been completely rewritten and I seriously doubt anyone would want to delete the new article, but the second AFD was closed by the same admin who closed the first one ... which would tend to impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you rephrase that last part? What does "impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD" mean? It just doesn't make any sense to me although I read it a few times. As for the second AfD though, it's really quite meaningless to have a Deletion Review going (which can result in an action taken against the article) AND an AfD (which also can result in an action taken against the article) at the same time, so starting it was flawed and it needed to be speedy closed till this process concludes, as others have pointed out. I'm starting to suspect that WCityMike (who opened the second AfD, out of process) just really did not want this article here and is willing to do quite a bit to see it and other articles go away. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with objectivity or lead one to do rash or out of process things, or lose civility. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, nothing wrong with an admin using his discretion.-Polotet 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but do not endorse the closure of the AFD - now that the article has been totally rewritten, my reasons for advocating its deletion no longer exist. Now that the article is something wholly different than the original one that should have been deleted, we may as well close this DRV as the deletion (or lack thereof) being reviewed is moot. If someone thinks the new one should be deleted, they can relist it. (I would vote/opine/whatever to keep.) BigDT 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD. I see no real problem with Lar's clsoe, but I understand why people do. The new article is different, though, so it's worth another hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD. Geogre and Badlydrawnjeff both make good points here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per mike, Liberatore, and others above. Note: I voted delete in the original AfD, but find the article still merits deletion. Deleuze 12:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - relist on Afd if the deleters wan't. this is an awfully long discussion for a simple issue - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - if we are 'vote'-counting, it's 6 deletes, one transwiki (not a keep or a delete, and Lostpedia can't be transwikied to, so let's ignore the vote), and the one keep vote was nowhere near being any good (keep, as it took some effort?) I'm sorry, but it looks very much like Lars made a mistake here. Would be happy with a relist, providing it's not immediately pulled as 'not being in process'. Proto///type 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I think that consensus was incorrectly, even arbitrarily, established, but delete per the AfD would be inappropriate as the article has now been completely rewritten. Sandstein 06:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo without prejudice to any further AfD- since the article is now so different, this discussion is largely moot. However, if someone thinks the article in its current form should be deleted, they can take it AfD where it should not be met with the argument that it recently survived AfD. As it was a no consensus closure, that argument should not be used. Metamagician3000 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think it's perfectly fine to argue against an immediate AfD on a normal no consensus closure, but this would be an AfD on a DIFFERENT article... ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in AfD - Unjusted closure by admin --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure If deletionists want to base things on numerical majorities they should put effort into their discussion points. AfD is not a vote, it is that simple. Ansell 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006

User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster

These were both deleted out of process by Drini. They were taken to tfd, but had a keep consensus and were closed. He claims to have deleted it because he followed the official policy, but it doesn't meet the Deletion policy. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4 and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 5. No evil boxes was also closed because of defective listing. See this edit. They do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and the debates both resulted in a keep. Dtm142 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

as my comments were requested. I did quote policy and followed it. -- Drini 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation. There are some policies that are more fundamental than others (recall the five pillars) ? I followed them and thus I stand that I didn't act out of policy. If the lower policies are in contradiction with the fundamental ones, the fundamental ones take precedence.-- Drini 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To which fundamental policy do you refer? Be specific, please; I'm not a mind reader, and could not locate where you quoted policy in the deletion for the second (the deletion log just says "tfd"). Jay Maynard 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4. He quoted the policies there. Reguardless, it was out of process. Dtm142 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to end this userbox war with a community compromise, not have you look for reasons to delete stuff. If it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria or deletion policy, it doesn't get deleted. Dtm142 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete on the first and put the 2nd one up for user space adoption by someone who was linking to it. Here we go again. Guess I was a fool to hope that WP:GUS would calm the deletionists down. --StuffOfInterest 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and MfD the first because it had two parallel reviews going on on separate MfD dates. The closing admin for the June 5 version (Xoloz) attempted to close both as an unsalvagable mess, but somehow that closure became disassociated with the June 4 review. The June 5 closure contained an explicit note that keep was the likely result of a clean nomination and review. Having two simultateous reviews with opposite conclusions is reason enough to send it back for a single combined review, having two closures with opposite conclusions for a single review is also enough to send it back, and we have both here.. Overturn, undelete, and leave alone for the second, because it has survived two separate TfD reviews in the past month. (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 24 for the first TfD discussion, which was referenced in the second.) GRBerry 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Endorse for the second, when I tried to multi-task I got it wrong. The closers rationale isn't enough reason to prevent WP:GUS, but the argument by Nhprman was a better argument for deletion than any of the keep arguments (as the prior TfD closed with no consensus rather than a clear keep consensus). GRBerry 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Weren't we just here? Why are admins trying to torpedo the German userbox solution?? Jay Maynard 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and, yes, I'll support move User Gangster to userspace, per WP:GUS. Jay Maynard 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both, move User Gangster to userspace per WP:GUS. We try to navigate out of the userbox mess and to find a compromise (following Jimbo's suggestion) when suddendly some admins start torpedoing the entire effort. CharonX/talk 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete follow the German solution (supported by Jimbo as compromise). No reason for the deletion as they don't meet T1. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete both of these please find a better compramise Yuckfoo 01:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both and move the second to user space, per WP:GUS —Mira 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• The former was already in userspace. Dtm142 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I said move the second one to user space. —Mira 02:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted No evil. T1/G4 (Tony Sidaway). Kotepho 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  G4 does not apply for recreating a deleted userbox in userspace. T1 does not apply in userspace. Dtm142 03:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  1) Yes, it does. Read the rfar. 2) Yes, it does. This is a logical extention of the rfar. (If something is inappropriate enough that if it was deleted in Template: it should not be recreated in User:, anything that would meet said criteria would still be inappropriate in User: even had it not been deleted in Template: previously.) Saying "no it doesn't" is not going to convince anyone and it does not make it true. Kotepho 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and deal with per WP:GUS. Kotepho, I wouldn't argue that these boxes can't be speedied - they certainly can - but I would argue that they shouldn't be, if the goal is to end the userbox controversy with a minimum of collateral damage. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Changing my vote to relist on MfD for the first and endorse deletion for the second. I should have looked more carefully at first; what a crap box. Thanks Kimchi.sg, for caling attention to that. I'd vote to delete either on MfD or TfD, but only the first one deserves its week there. Refraining from speedying all but the most egregious boxes would be a great good-faith gesture on the part of userbox deletionists. The gangster box though, really has no redeeming value. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let me just say ... oh thank god I don't care about this shit anymore. It's sooooo much more relaxing. Ohh, you all should try it, I'm in heaven over here. --Cyde?Weys 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete both, and Userfy the second one per WP:GUS. jgp 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first, WP:GUS Relist (TfD) the second one, and Remove Drini's admin rights for a week or two while we implement WP:GUS. _{No offense meant, Drini.} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem I'm used to people calling for admins desysopping for doing The Right Thing (TM) and following policy.

• Question. Does T1 apply in userspace or not? I'm seeing conflicting opinions on that issue. Anyone care to back theirs up with a link? Either way, T1 doesn't apply to the first one at all. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  There are different 'interpretations'. T1 became policy without sitting through the normal proposal and consensus procedures because it was endorsed by Jimbo. Jimbo has repeatedly said that the 'problem' is that things in the template namespace might be considered to be 'supported' by Wikimedia, and thus userboxes stating a disputed viewpoint should be moved to user space. Since 'T1' became policy because Jimbo said it should I don't see how it can be 're-interpreted' to mean something directly contradictory to Jimbo's position and still retain it's validity as a policy. The alternate view is apparently that you cannot transclude disputed viewpoints... you can have them directly on your user page, but not transcluded in from a sub-page in user space or anywhere else. This is based on an interpretation of the word 'template' in T1 being meant to cover 'anything transcluded' rather than 'things in the Template: namespace' as Jimbo has advocated. But then, Jimbo also said, "don't go on any sprees deleting", and we've seen how well some people listened to that. --CBDunkerson 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. MaxSem 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist the first on MfD and keep deleted and prohibit userspace creation of Template:Gangster. "This user is a gangster" is a statement which has strong intimidating overtones (unlike "This user is a homosexual" or even "This user hates the EFF") and I would protest even if one were to just write it on his user page in plain form. Template:Gangster goes beyond the acceptable bounds of good taste and should not be retained even in user space. Kimchi.sg 06:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Which policy, aside from T1 or G4, does the second violate? If there's something besides those two, then I'll support deleting it. Jay Maynard 12:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per above.  Grue  06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete first, germanize gangster and be done with it. Misza13 ^{T C} 08:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first. Keep the second deleted - the second one was in template space and was fair game for deletion. If someone wants to userfy it they should feel free to do so. There are admins who will assist. Metamagician3000 11:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first per WP:GUS, Endorse deletion the 2nd. Gangster template is simply unacceptable. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first and Userify the second per WP:DEUTSCH. — CJewell (talk to me) 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Deletions were out of process and contradictory to apparent consensus at TfD/MfD. Seemingly no applicable policy for deletion. --CBDunkerson 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and userfy if necessary. Nobody who has been paying attention here would have expected these speedies to go unchallenged - and thus they were improper speedy deletions. Please remember --Speedy Deletion is not a Toy 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

for the record, it wasn't a speedy deletion (if you look at that definition) it was just a normal deletion, where I applied fundamental policies to close a TFD. Can people stop callign this a speedy? Nowadays people just like to say it without stopping to consider that. For it to have been a speedy, I would have to delete on sight as I saw it withouth doing the whole TFD thing. 00:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an out of process deletion. They were already closed with a keep consensus and a defective listing before you closed them again and deleted them. Fundamental policies can be referenced during a tfd, but to determine the outcome, you look at what the community says and the deletion policies. I don't care if you delete it if it goes through an mfd with a delete consensus. Dtm142 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They were already closed with a keep consensus . MM. No. Majority doens't always mean consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Drini 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Any deletion which does not come as the result of an unchallenged 'prod' or consensus in a delete discussion is, by default, a 'speedy' delete... taken solely on the perogative of the admin performing the deletion without implied (per 'prod') or direct (per '*fD') consensus. As to your citation of the pillars - your action violates pillar four for certain (acting directly contrary to consensus is not 'cooperative') and is as much against pillar one (in that starting pointless fights over window dressing disrupts building the encyclopedia) as for it (in that the boxes in question did not build the encyclopedia). --CBD 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete 1st & Userify 2nd as mentioned a few times. --Scandalous 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy as per what Jimbo says is reasonable about the German solution. The idea that Drini could close so many TfD's with a generic closing message about the five pillars when really they were not for one, all relevant, and two, all followed by the action. Ansell 11:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy User:gangster.. this is absolute racism against minority. undelete now--Bonafide.hustla 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete - they weren't templates, so speedying them as T1 was inappropriate. I think it's hilarious that the mantra of those pushing the German plan was that it would end the UBX wars because once in template space, administrators would magically stop deleting things out of process. BigDT 23:09, 17 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)

• Endorse closure. If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide here. By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even if User:Robertsteadman were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited this source, a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! Xoloz 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Wikipedia's general understanding of copyright. The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to). Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own. Geogre 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and Project Gutenberg is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests. Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- SCZenz 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - how on earth did anyone even consider deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? Metamagician3000 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You did read the copyright discussion, right? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Wikipedia:Public domain was incorrect (which one user was). Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- SCZenz 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not discussing the merits of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. Metamagician3000 03:38, 17 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".

19 June 2006

Sick Nick Mondo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick Nick Mondo

The decision of delete has led to the article causing problems among wrestling notability requirements as the wrestler in question, Nick Mondo, has had a DVD about his wrestling career released and is filming documentaries on wrestling. He is also, among the indy and hardcore wrestling scenes, considered especially notable. The article has then been pointed to as a sort of "if Nick Mondo wasn't worthy of an article then X isn't worth either". Another issue is the article already exists at Nick Mondo and can't be made into a redirect because it was protected. --- Lid 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge contents of Sick Nick Mondo into Nick Mondo and redirect. The existence of the article at Nick Mondo was not mentioned on the AfD, and as such it is reasonble to presume the voters in this low-participation AfD were not aware of it. Both "Nick" and "Sick Nick" articles contain assertions of notablity, but there are different ones such that I feel there is information to merge. I think a redirect from one to the other would be fine, I take the "do not redirect" comment in the afd to be referring to earlier suggestion that it should be redirected to Brownian motion. Redirects from nicknames are standard practice - see Category:Redirects from alternate names, I don't think the redirect will need protecting. Thryduulf 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See above: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm agreeing with the close, and commenting on why I think it was valid (I did not vote at AfD but can see the deleted content). Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.

This user is interested in drugs.

This user is not interested in drugs.

Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just recreate it in userspace. DRV isn't necessary for that. See WP:GUS; it might even already be there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Userfy if not already userfied; Endorse closure if already userfied. jgp (T|C) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've posted the last three versions of this template before it was deleted. They're rather different from one another. Note the first links to a user category that probably ought to be deleted along with most user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though it would be nice if history can be preserved when it is being userfied. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering over 750 users link to this template, it would be nice to at least have a redirect of some sort if it is to be recreated in user space. The first version above is the correct one. --Pascal666 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. And re-point the existing links to the new location (perhaps per AWB?). CharonX/talk 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and put in the triage section at the bottom of TfD until user pages are modified by a bot. Ansell 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted from template space per T2 and German solution. Someone may userfy by all means per German solution, if that has not already been done. Metamagician3000 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore/Move to user space and then delete the template page or replace it with Template:GUS UBX to (after correcting links, of course). —Mira 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per the fact that this is not T1 and per Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion. -- Where 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS to preserve history. Though this userbox should not exit in template namespace any longer. Acceptable replacement of {{deletedpage}} is {{GUS UBX to}}. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS. Guess we have to cleanup and recover the wounded from some of the past battles. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant [who has no contributions whatsoever other than his stance on this subject], Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon[ymous] comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.

  What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?

  And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirt pudding

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding

• Undelete and comment The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Wikipedia obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. Baked Alaska).
• Endorse closure, keep deleted.There is a consensus—one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus—that recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is not comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in most comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back at least to 1921. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the WP:V and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports 1210 pages on Baked Alaska and six on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closing admin: I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding, and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A5. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks. There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's. Geogre 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Makharinsky

• Delte and comment. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a review for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. Interlingua ^talk 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (again) of self-evident vanispamcruftisement. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, Dezhnev (talk · contribs), is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, User:GOY2006, is also Makharinsky. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. Metros232 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse properly closed AfD. Keep deleted. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar, the quoted result was keep, but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.

So Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD without prejudice. In this case I think the closing comment: "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting" seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. NoSeptember 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. Metamagician3000 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) Will (message me!) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus is probably right conclusion by the deleting admin but deleting the article this way and said it was a result of AfD is wrong. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This entry has now been recreated and redirected to Daily Kos by User:Hipocrite. I don't have issues with the action, but I have issues that the action was taken without/against consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The redirect isn't sufficient, imo, because that page doesn't contain the information from the blanked page (and shouldn't). If/when the page is recreated it will probably need to be protected from User:Armandoatdailykos, but that's another issue to take up later. Dori 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  DRV is not the place to pick the version of the article. I think people mean to say, undelete the history, let people edit the page, and start a discussion on the talk page to decide what the article should look like, or if it should be a redirect. NoSeptember 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I guess that's shorthand for "Unprotect so that it can be reverted to the last unblanked version". Reverting is not an admin job, unprotecting is. ~ trialsanderrors 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh? Reverting is not an admin's job? Perhaps I am misreading your post here... KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  I parsed that as, "any editor can do the reverting, once the article is unprotected, but it takes an admin to unprotect it. Reverting isn't an admin's job specfically." It's not a comment on what admins can and cannot do. · rodii · 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, rodii. ~ trialsanderrors 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mooted by recreation in appropriate version without GFDL violations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • False The minimum required is to undelete the history of this article, so that comments can be properly merged into "Daily Kos" when it is agreed as to what is proper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

Overturn And Keep:As I stated in the dicussion for propsed deletion against the NN statement a(fter I figured out how to get there)I showed an excerpt of a NYT article that stated the band.It said: I have changed the page because look I just joined and still finding out what happens.For the non notable band issue I have an excerpt for the New York Times which states the band.(NYT Article):

Like MTV, it is starting to create stars that glow brightly within its own universe. The band Hollywood Undead, which did not exist three months ago, has achieved celebrity thanks to MySpace. "We were just a bunch of loser kids who sat around our friend's house all day, and we started making music and recording it on computer," one of its vocalists, Jeff Phillips, said.

About two months ago the group posted a page on MySpace decorated with pictures of all seven members disguised in hockey masks and other forms of concealment. They also included a few original songs, a fusion of heavy metal and hip-hop. "In a matter of weeks it got huge, and it kept on getting bigger and bigger," said Mr. Phillips, whose left earlobe was splayed open enough to accommodate a hollow ring the size of a wedding band.

"It's been maybe nine weeks, and we've had over a million plays. We have 60,000 people who listen to it every day. It's crazy. If you look at our page, it's like we're a huge band that's toured a hundred times."

Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract."

This can be found on their myspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogPHman (talk • contribs) ."

I didn't know half of the things people were stating as I am a new user.I KNOW THAT DOESN"T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO IGNORENCE BUT PLEASE ONE MISTAKE FORGIVE ME.Please recreate the article as I didn't mean to vandalize or create any problems.Thank you for your time.

• Relist:Had proven wrong the NN charge against the band NYT Article on Myspace BlogDogPHman 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• The correct link for the blog entry above is [40]. This is an article in the New York Times about Myspace generally which briefly mentions the band, not an article about the band itself. This is the fifth time an article has been created for this band, and it's been through AfD, with the consensus of "delete". There was considerable discussion of whether the band was notable because of its presence on Myspace, and the conclusion was that it wasn't. That conclusion might be worth re-examining, but we went through a full AfD back in April. And the band still hasn't actually issued an album, although they keep talking about doing so. I suggest leaving them deleted until they meet some WP:BAND criteria. Maybe someday they'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone without ever having issued their music on a physical record medium. But they're not there yet. --John Nagle 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This version in my opinion goes much further in adressing concerns of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall article quality, and it was deemed unfit for Wikipedia by an AfD consensus; I have no reason to suspect anything went wrong during the AfD, nor do I feel that this NYT article presents any claim of notability not formerly addressed in the AfD. In essence, Wikipedia exists to document bands and individuals that have already acheived fame, not to help bands acheive fame (as is MySpace's purpose). Unless some new evidence can be presented, I see no reason to restore. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with AmiDaniel's analysis. Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. I think the five previous AfDs pretty clearly prove consensus on this issue. Deleuze 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract." - in other words, they have zero records released. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, should be speedy deleted on sight. Extreme keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: At least this band makes its money online, so it makes sense that they'd believe that Wikipedia is a good place to increase visibility, but it isn't. Some MySpace bands are going to be huge, some became huge, but we should be behind the curve and inherent conservative and non-speculative, if we're a reference work at all. WP:MUSIC therefore requires records, record deals, and distribution (getting the platters in the Wal*Mart). When that happens, it will be time for the backward-reporting Wikipedia article. Geogre 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

16 June 2006

Sadullah Khan

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadullah Khan

The AfD on this biography received very few votes. In total, exactly two "delete" votes from registered editors (and one from an anonymous IP). I came across the AfD and article five days later than the other voters, and realized that although the article was badly written, it addressed a distinctly notable person who very easily passes both the "author test" and the "professor test". I voted "strong keep", and also cleaned up the article at least enough to more clearly indicate the notability of Mr. Khan. A version that I have further touched up (slightly) is temporarily at: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sk

In my comment, I specifically requested that the closing admin at least extend the vote, if not simply close it as "no consensus". Given that the registered editors at most split 2 del/1 keep, "no consensus" would be the right action even without the request. But given that there's is no evidence that the original 2 delete voters looked at the cleaned up article, a deletion just seems premature. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Shane should have an article because he is a noteable and respectable australian journalist60.225.117.215 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis should be allowed to have an article because he is a highly noteable and very well respected Australian journalist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.117.215 (talk • contribs)

Note: Even though I believe this should be overturned, it appears this anon editor made an error and is discussing a different article. LotLE×talk

• Relist, given how few editors commented and how much work was done on the article during the AFD. -- Vary | Talk 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - closure was within discretion, and I'm not critical of it, but with so few votes and now a cogent challenge to the outcome, I think a further AfD with opportunity for a better debate is the safe way to go. Metamagician3000 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLE and MM3K ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reasonable notability has been established; articles deserves another chance. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I have no idea about the notability but I do feel the article deletion debate should have been resulted in "no consensus" --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, I nominated it. It was an oversight on my part not actually including a Delete. That would have made three registered users... and considering the wording of my nom, the admin may have just counted it as a delete vote anyway. If the person who asked for review has rewritten the article, then let him recreate it. I do not have a problem with him doing that, but I don't see a reason to overturn this AFD because IMO, the admin made the right decision at the time. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLe and MM3K. The article was significantly improved during the AfD to the extent the early votes can be discarded as out-of-date. Even without this, I would have either relisted or closed as no-consensus. Thryduulf 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

File:944 h.jpg

This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "Courtesy of Indiana University." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name? I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. --Jpbrenna 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted from Commons, and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at Deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually can now Will (message me!) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woa! Well, would you look at that! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Wikipedia Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. CharonX/talk 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• The image deletion is recent enough to make undeletion possible. I think the best action would be to contact User:Essjay (who deleted it), and make you case directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stone_Trek
• Overturn and Keep As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting WP:WEB, as it only needs to meet one of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [41], it was featured on G4TechTV [42], and even William Shatner plugs it on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at Newgrounds.com as well as StarLand.com, who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:WEB.

And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. MikeWazowski 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. Deleuze 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really asserting that the website for the Sci-fi Channel isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - Motor (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial works is the wording jeff. It's worded that way for a reason. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from outside the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - Motor (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - clearly meets WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in a new AFD (preferably) or Overturn and keep (per User:MikeWazowski's comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting WP:WEB that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. BigDT 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, WP:POINT accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
• The external links provided that supposedly meet WP:WEB did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that Site of the Week is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (Hahnchen) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Wikipedia articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. On G4TV.com, Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called plug by the All-Bran Man, which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive third from the bottom.
• As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of WP:WEB says "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - within discretion. Metamagician3000 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - Hahnchen 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Valid closure by deleting admin, no reason to overturn. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Hahnchen. — Mike • 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the mention on scifi.com does not meet WP:WEB. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - Nothing looks unusual or improper in AfD. ` LotLE×talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A spin-off of a spin-off cannot borrow the notability of the original: the cartoon version of "Joanie Loves Chachi" can't get "Happy Days"'s numbers. WP:WEB is not satisfied. Geogre 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber combat

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat
• Overturn and delete. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of WP:NOR — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it isn't a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
  • "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
  • "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
  • "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
  • "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
  • "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
  • "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
  • "It's interesting!"
  • "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
  • "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
  • "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
  • "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — Mike • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. Deleuze 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -R. fiend 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a Star Wars Insider ref and actual books Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? Kotepho 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, R. fiend seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - there was an obvious consensus to keep. MaxSem 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in WP:V, which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - this link in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own Star Wars Insider magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various Star Wars novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. MikeWazowski 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the quality of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — Mike • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[43] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[44], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[45], "More editing and cleanup can help."[46], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[47]. Also it should be noted that the nominator was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[48].
  Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, Yanksox ^(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. EVula 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - Motor (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. Kotepho 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. BryanG^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close. Properly closed based on the discussion. --JJay 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close per BryanG. —Mira 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. BigDT 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close followed policy.Geni 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per MikeW. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. Metamagician3000 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per consensus in AfD --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Original Research. --Improv 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —Mira 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to Wookiepedia, which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on fencing. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --John Nagle 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--Eloquence* 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Captainktainer * Talk 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. Barnas 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox (animator)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.

• Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board was deleted out of process and page protected by two admins, Nandesuka and Cyde. The former admits to ignoring all rules in deleting the page [49] while the latter provokes a Wikipedia:Wheel_war by undoing the actions of another administrator, Haukurth, that had the project restored because the original deletion was out of process. Cyde's justification of his actions is that the project is "crap". However, many editors and administrators pointed out that the project did not meet any of the CSD criteria. See the long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. A MfD was opened for the project, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board, but it was closed only 4 hours after it started when the normal procedure is 8 days. The result was declared a "speedy delete" by admin JDoorjam who voted for Deletion in the less than 4 hour debate. Objections were raised in the MfD to having the project deleted. As the founder of the Wikipedia:Conservative notice board, I would have liked to comment in the debate as well but I was away during that short period of time. Regardless of the MfD, admin Cyde deleted the project while the debate was still active at 16:57, June 15, 2006 (UTC) [50], surprising admin JDoorjam, who closed the debate at 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

Proposal: Restore the project page because of its out of process deletion. --Facto 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: The Wikipedia:Conservative notice board was modelled after the Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board. Project description: This is the LGBT/conservative notice board, for Wikipedians interested in articles related to LGBT/conservative topics. It should be noted that this is intended to be a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not a noticeboard solely for the use of LGBT/conservative Wikipedians. --Facto 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't care if it stays or goes, I was solicited to join up with it, but it wasn't a speedy candidate, so overturn and list at MfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - This page is a perfect example of a page that is used as a tool for ballot stuffing and political organising. It is not the only page that should go for these reasons, but it should be gone, and is presently gone for good reason. Pages like this that are destructive enough to the community need to be buried, and VfD is not the place to discuss it. --Improv 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; no good reason for keeping it, would be deleted by MfD anyway. Also a blatant POV noticeboard; there's no such thing as a exclusively conservative issue. A politics noticeboard would be better, as proposed on ANI. Johnleemk | Talk 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and seal with concrete. Such boards compromise NPOV fundamental principle of wikipedia and carry a big potential risk for misuse. -- Drini 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - vote-stuffing "noticeboards" harm the project and should be removed, with or without discussion. It is clear that the board was nothing more than an organized attempt at meatpuppetry. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This sort of thing has no place on wikipedia. --pgk^(talk) 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:IAR isn't necessary; this is enforcement of WP:NPOV, very clearly. -- SCZenz 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and let the community have a debate about it. NPOV doesn't apply outside article space. moink 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We have no need for a "WikiProject POV Pushing". --Carnildo 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Almost all my points were first raised at the administrative noticeboard, I'm summarizing what seems to me the most important parts of that discussion in order to explain my conclusion. This page had the same structure as Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. (This comparison board is now under MfD.) That would be reason to let the MFD run. However, the page creator appears to have violated WP:SPAM. To my eyes this is enough to endorse speedy deletion solely because of WP:SPAM violation despite parallel structure. The salting violates Wikipedia:Protection_policy#A_permanent_or_semi-permanent_protection_is_used_for:. (There is a counter argument citing WP:SALT that is easily overcome by reading the entire sentence cited.) By the time deletion review finishes, we'll have had an effective temporary protection. I agree that this protection does not meet permanent protection standards, so overturn only protection. Other boards were mentioned in the the ANI discussion, if the MFD for LBGT results in deletion they should receive MFDs also. If the LBGT MFD results in a keep, then the title could be well used, and should be unprotected for that purpose. GRBerry 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll admit I've only been here for six months, but could you explain why telling people about a group that highlights articles of a particular interest meets the WP:SPAM policy? The only part of that article I can find that some might think applies is "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Which Facto most certainly did not do. DavidBailey 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  Telling people in general wouldn't have been a problem. A notice at the "New pages seeking contributors" section of Wikipedia:Community Portal would have been fine. So would have been putting notice up on a couple of highly watched talk pages (say, the abortion/pro-life article talk pages). The problem is the mass invitations to editors that "identify as a conservative Wikipedian" (quote from the invitations). These are people already known to have a certain point of view. Immediately, they are targetted to participate on the discussion of this community portal, ultimately to participate in the various action items. It would have been poor form and risk of a spam block for Facto, but probably not a problem for the notice board, had he gone through the 20 most recent contributors of major edits to a couple of relevant articles. GRBerry 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Should have gone through MfD normally. I don't know why people think it's better to speedy delete, annoy a bunch of people, and have it out on DRV/ANI etc. for 2 weeks when it could just go to MfD for a week. --W.marsh 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. I find it very odd that it's okay to have interest groupings about geography or sexual orientation, but not about political views. Considering that anyone can be part of any of them and monitor its activities, assuming that an interest group about political issues is automatically going to be abused seems not well thought out. And if Wikipedia policy is what is driving some admins to determine that it should be removed, at least the policies should be followed when deleting it, don't you think? DavidBailey 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD. The speedy looks to me like it was a spur-of-the-moment thing sparked by the potential political aspect of the situation, which is understandable yet probably not the best response to the situation. Having said that, I'm concerned about having boards like this for *any* type of advocacy or organizing - the LGBT board looks like it could (not saying it HAS, or that its role is intended this way) be a flashpoint for vote-stacking and other problems. If we were to have general notice boards for broad topics - such as the Politics notice board someone suggested - it might work out. Tony Fox (speak) 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy restore and reopen the MfD. DRV is not for discussing whether something belongs on WP or not, it's for discussing whether the deletion was within the bounds of policy. I'd like for someone to cite a speedy deletion criteria that justifies the early closure of the MfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think it is normally reasonable to close the xFD for a speedy deleted x. That happens all the time for AFDs. I'm not looking closely enough into the timing to know when the closure occured in the sequence of delete-restore-delete&salt. If prior to the first restore, the closure is reasonable. If after the restore, the closure may not be appropriate. GRBerry 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted or rename it and recreate it with less of a polarizing philosophy behind it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Recreated (not by me) as Wikipedia:Politics notice board. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  That was me. I suggested it at WP:AN/I and there seemed to be a generally favorable reaction so I went ahead. Still can use some polishing, but there shouldn't be any 'NPOV' issues if it covers all sides of the spectrum. --CBD 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I am cautiously optimistic that the politics notice board will not serve a harmful role to the encyclopedia. --Improv 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I, however, am more doubtful. Take a look at the "Articles with disputes" section: Ann Coulter, Pro-life, Homosexual agenda, Special rights, Nuclear family, Gay rights opposition. Exploding Boy 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Feel free to add some of your own. Many of these political articles have become fairly POV-biased and need exposure to a wider audience and further editing work. DavidBailey 03:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for obvious reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Which obvious reasons? The out-of-process speedy? The incomplete MfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The creator of this project, despite his claims, revealed his purpose for forming the noticeboard when he spammed over 50 editors with the following message (emphasis mine):

  Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board.

  I only regret that I exercised leniency and did not give Facto a block for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. I ignored all rules and deleted it because I honestly thought the deletion would be absolutely uncontroversial given the clear and patent POV-pushing nature of the project. I hold no rancor towards those who want to run it through the whole process, but it's clear that even most of those who wanted to see this go through MfD planned to vote "delete." So let's just skip to the part where we agree that while POV pushing happens, we shouldn't provide a home for it on the Wikipedia namespace. Nandesuka 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW should never be cited, certainly not in a situation like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Was obviously not a good-faith creation, but rather was spurred by the VFD page on Opposition to homosexuality. Exploding Boy 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion partisan vote-stacking effort. Deletion was quite appropriate. -M^ask 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - there shouldn't be a noticeboard for a specific POV. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE: this has been recreated by the same person as Wikipedia:Politics notice board and deleted under G4. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wrong, Tony, I did not recreate the project. Another admin moved the page and restored it. I suggest you apologize immediately for wheel warring and undo your harmful and disruptive actions to Wikipedia. --Facto 03:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll make no apology for redeleting that trash, though had I known that it had been undeleted rather than recreated I would not have done so. Since that is a technicality and the page must remain deleted, I will not restore it. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Tony? Apologize for harmful and disruptive actions? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week. Jay Maynard 11:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fine, but G4 doesn't apply to speedies directly, or we'd never be able to resurrect anything speedied since it'd be a recreation. Thus the appearance of the "met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place" bit (which got rather masticated in the refactoring of CSD a while back) - a re-speedy under pseudo-G4 is, in fact, a speedy under some other criterion. I'm not just ruleslawerying; the usual intent of G4 is to keep e.g. AfD'd material deleted, rather than arbitrarily speedied material. -Splash - tk 02:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    G4 applies to all valid deletions. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Tony, I think you may be over-reacting. You could have just as easily removed any of the postings in the politics notice board that you thought were not appropriate, made suggestions and otherwise help it evolve into something reasonable. People were acting on good faith, based on discussion. People network all the time in many ways. As long as they engage in discussion with others, networking is not a bad thing. -- Samuel Wantman 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record (again), >I< undeleted and rewrote the page following discussion at AN/I and here which seemed to be in favor of the idea. I then indicated that I had done so here, on ANI, and on the talk page of the notice board itself. As to the whole 'G4' argument... are we seriously process-lawyering over how the process applies to situations where the process is being ignored? We tossed process out the window when this was deleted... and again when most of the deletion reviewers did not respond on the basis of whether normal process was followed. We could debate whether or not 'Conservatism' and 'Politics' are "substantially identical" (e.g. 'G4'), but I'd really rather just fix this before the disruption gets any worse. Is a 'Politics notice board' really 'more biased' than a 'LGBT notice board'? So much so that it must be nuked on sight rather than improved to a more neutral presentation? --CBD 10:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Some admins are so busy deleting that I think it has been missed that a great solution has been presented that I believe will work. See Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board#New Version. Basically, create the Political notice board, then create sub-pages related to specific areas of interest within politics- IE- minimum wage, abortion, etc. This way, they are not liberal or conservative, and are both neutral while allowing those who are interested in a specific political topic to maintain a board on that specific topic. DavidBailey 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore as per DavidBailey --Strothra 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD per Tony Fox. Why, exactly, was this a candidate for speedy deletion the first time? Jay Maynard 02:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore All these cabals um, groups joined together by common interests ought be deleted, but deleting some but not others, seemingly based upon the sociopolitical perspectives of the deleting admins rather than according to a consistent application of policy, would be the very worst outcome. I'll change my stance if and when equally partisan - and, frankly, more controversial and less mainstream - projects appear to be on their way to deletion.Timothy Usher 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh n03s! Teh C4BALZ! --mboverload@ 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Hope that works for you.Timothy Usher 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Restore and discuss. Because this has been moved to a more neutral setting, it is no less worthy of respect than Wikipedia:Schoolwatch. While I disagree with ballot stuffing, I have no issue with a place where people of common interests can gather. Denni ☯ 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD - where I would be inclined to vote "delete", but not until I've had a chance to have a good look at it and think about the debate. Metamagician3000 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore - invalid speedy delete candidate, needs community input. Davodd 05:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted BUT -- Hipocrite made a very good suggestion during the MfD that got utterly lost in the noise. I suggested burning the thing and starting anew; He said, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism seems like a good place to do so. Allow me to suggest that articles like Edmund Burke, Conservatism and Social Darwinism would be GOOD articles to focus on. This makes sense to me -- and is far more in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps this would be a good idea, but for the circumstances after the spamming, where we have a posse of political conservatives gathered by the spammer, all looking for a suitable page to use for networking. This has to be stamped out first, then in a few months, if there is a group of historians or politican scientists on Wikipedia who want to form such a wikiproject, let them go ahead. --Tony Sidaway 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not encourage elitism on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's slogan is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Editors should not have to be historians or "politican scientists" [sic] to form a WikiProject about conservatism. I would also like to know how such a group could exist without the use of invitations. And why would we need to wait months to start a WikiProject? I created the project in one day and it was deleted out of process in less than half a day. --Facto 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (repeated from above) Some admins are so busy deleting that I think it has been missed that a great solution has been presented that I believe will work. See Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board#New Version. Basically, create the Political notice board, then create sub-pages related to specific areas of interest within politics- IE- minimum wage, abortion, etc. This way, they are not liberal or conservative, and are both neutral while allowing those who are interested in a specific political topic to maintain a board on that specific topic. DavidBailey 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore for out-of-process deletions. Without ever having seen it, it seems to me more likely than not that it has no place on Wikipedia, but it certainly merits a full *fD debate. Sandstein 06:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted And repeat my suggestion that if people are interested in conservative topics, they link to Edmund Burke, not to Ann Coulter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly object to these out of process speedy deletions. They cause far more harm to Wikipedia than having a 'bad' page hang around for a few days. It should have been left to go through the MFD process, so restore and send to MFD. Petros471 09:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Per Metamagician, Petros471, W.Marsh, et al, restore and send to MfD as these speedy deletions are divisive. Technically a case could be made that it qualifies under some CSD or another but that case hasn't been made here yet to my satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per DavidBailey. Also, performing an out-of-process speedy deletion should be grounds for immediate desysopping--it's one of the most gratuitious abuses of admin powers possible. jgp (T|C) 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This page has no connection, however remote, with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free social networking site. Sysop actions were reasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not endorse the deletion, however, as it was clearly intended as a vote-stacking device, keep deleted BigDT 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a foothold for POV-pushing and factionalism that we don't need, and Nandesuka was right to delete it. JDoorjam Talk 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - And I'm kind of sad to see so many people valuing process over fundamental policies like "Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia". Process changes over time, the goal does not. This page was a transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism and deserved its fate. --Cyde↔Weys 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem I'm having with this, Cyde, is that other noticeboards, including the one upon which this was based, are also "transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism[s]". As Tom harrison said on the noticeboard, we tend to see this more clearly when we disagree with the message presented. Others may take issue with process, about which I've no opinion. My questions are about purpose. It's hard to imagine a more efficient way to manipulate Wikipedia content across a very large number of pages than by allowing some partisan factions to thrive while others are, by whatever process, deleted. I hate to say it, but this is how this looks to me. Applying clear and consistent standards would remove the appearance of partiality.Timothy Usher 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hello, can we just close this now? It's embarrassing to see this bad faith appeal against the deletion of a blatantly bad faith attemot to enlist Wikipedia for a partisan cause drag on, and more and more editors being hauled into it honestly believing, in that face of incontrovertible evidence of malice, that the proponent intended something other than what he actually did: to gather together a bunch of people he personally had identified as politically biased with the intent of influencing Wikipedia. Let's just delete this and salt the earth. Too many of us have bee misled and lied to. Failing that, let's go to Jimbo and ask for guidance. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whose appeal you considered bad faith, but mine is certainly not. I wholly concur with the your sentiment regarding this particular noticeboard, but I'd suggest we compile a list of all allegedly similar noticeboards, Guilds and Alliances to be considered as a group.Timothy Usher 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, go to policy and try to establish a policy outlawing them all. But here we have a palpable, incontrovertible example, not some wild handwaving accusations, of one page created and populated out of bad faith. Let's deal with this and move on, knowing that the principle is a good one, to wipe out the others. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. There has been at least one admin who claimed to justify a userbox deletion on the ground of consistency; if that's his goal, then I would expect those other noticeboards to receive the same treatment as this one at his hands. Jay Maynard 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If you know the admin. ask him (if he didn't vote to delete this one) why he didn't vote to delete this one. Wikipedia is not consistent--that's a given. We don't refrain from doing the right thing just because somebody else didn't do the right thing. There lies the road to partisanship. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not naming him because the specific admin is not relevant; I'll let him step forward if he wishes (preferably with a speedy delete of the other pages, whatever they may be). Jay Maynard 23:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well you make an accusation against one admin and choose to generalise that to all admins by implication. You refuse to name that admin, but did you, at the time, bring the problem to his attention? If none of these is true I would happily suggest that your accusation is worthless and that, lacking the good faith to identify the case, you yourself are engaged in a bad faith action, smearing all administrators by the reported action, which you refuse to substantiate, of a single administrator. I suggest that you withdraw your accusation, having refused outright to support it. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Okkay, fine. User:Metamagician3000, care to comment, since you're the one who cited consistency as a desirable thing? (If you look, you'll see that he agreed with my proposed resolution of this DRV.) Now, Tony, would YOU care to retract YOUR accusation of bad faith? I tried to avoid dragging that other admin into this, but since you insisted... Jay Maynard 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I do think that pages such as this belong at MfD, and that's how I voted above, and how I would probably vote in similar cases. But I also realise this one was deleted in good faith by a respected admin after due consideration, and on grounds that I have some sympathy for. End of story, really. Metamagician3000 02:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony, of couse, being that this would likely be close to gone at this point had the MfD been allowed to run its course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The spam message of its creator pretty much let the cat out of the bag as to the reason for its creation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and permit the full discussion at MfD. It's impossible to rationally discuss this w/o seeing it.--Kchase02 T 03:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Seems detrimental to the interests of a NPOV Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Recommend larting for overturn voters. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted with fire and extra brimstone. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the danger of vote stacking, coordinating edit wars and such, even unintentionally, is too great. I'm not too crazy about some of the projects/noticeboards used as comparisons, either. -- Kjkolb 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted... can't endorse this deletion enough. While the nominator notes that this is very similar to the LGBT project, it's telling that there is no anti-LGBT project. If we vote Keep on this project, there will undoubtedly be a Liberal project created in retaliation, and it can only go south after that. --kizzle 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Over at WP:AFD, they're holding slow, reasoned debates over articles much less worthy than this one. This page is far too controversial for the speedy procedure. Admins should confine themselves to using them only in uncontroversial situations. Vadder 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Why are we voting? Instead of having a discussion? In particular, why are we voting in the only wikipedia venue that only requires 50%+1 to delete something? Restore, relist, talk. - brenneman ^{L} 04:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I do see a lot of discussion about. --Cyde↔Weys 04:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: vote stacking/edit war vehicle; record of spam violations. This is appropriate for usenet, not an encyclopedia. Fireplace 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted:vote stacking and spam violations. Come on guys, you know better than that. Thetruthbelow 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Drini, Fireplace, and discussion preceeding original deletion on AN/I[51] Disruptive, vote-stacking, created for a specific agenda, does nothing to improve and much to inflict harm upon the Encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per Facto. Either delete all or allow all pages devoted to specific interests, whether they be conservative or gay/lesbian or, as I just discovered, Iranian. --Mantanmoreland 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Atromitos

Was speedily deleted, but after reviewing the history I cannot find the reason why. Tone seems to be inactive, so I'm bringing it here. Conscious 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Odd. User:MetroStar dumped a whole bunch of incorrect tags on it ({{copyright}}{{spam}}{{advertisement}}{{copyright}}{{delete}}!) without an edit summary in sight. Tone then deleted, probably in one of the occasional lapses of checking histories etc. I can find no evidence of copyright violation, and the circumstances are dubious to say the least, so I've restored and reverted. -Splash - tk 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, upon review, some large segments of Special:ContributionsMetroStar should not be trusted. -Splash - tk 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Close discussion, now undeleted by Splash. Sandstein 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Walk To Emmaus

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk To Emmaus
• Relist Only four editors commented on the article (3/1 for deletion) and there was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability. If the consensus is to endorse deletion I would appreciate a copy for my userspace, but idealy I think further discussion on AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• That is plenty to delete an article such as this, and there is no quorum for AfD. It was about some random "spiritual renewal program" that, at most, needed some mention in the article of the organisation that runs it for its 3 days [52], not the event of Biblical importance. Endorse deletion. -Splash - tk 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The organiization that runs it for it its three days Which one did you mean [53] [54] [55][56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] and that's just the communities in Texas that have their own web domains. What I would really like is for someone to explain to me more than just "nn delete". 10,000's of people have been on these reteats I think that makes them notable. Why do others think they are not? Eluchil404 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse it's enough - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• "There was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability"? There were no arguments presented for notability to discuss. None in the article, none in the AfD (Google searches and resulting hits are not a claim to notability, though Google can turn up reliable third-party sources, which can be), and none here so far. Endorse deletion at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 3 deletes, one redirect/cleanup. No serious arguments made either way. Deletion is acceptable, relisting for more input would have been acceptable, and anyone, including the nominator here, can do the redirect if they believe it appropriate. GRBerry 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - although this could usefully be recreated as a redirect to Emmaus--Aoratos 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually no, it should be redirected to Cursillo if anything, as it is the Methodist version of the program created because they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use the Cursillo name, among other things. It actually isn't a random religious thing, but as an offshoot of the Cursillo movement, it belongs in that article, or not at all. It is really not notable otherwise. It has nothing to do with actually "walking" or the town of Emmaus, so the above suggestion is illogical.pschemp | talk 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't illogical. I've no knowledge of the religious movement (it doesn't seem that notable - and others use the same name), however the phrase the 'walk to Emmaus' is notable as a common title for the pericope in Luke's narrative of the Resurrection. That's far more notable. Someone typing in 'walk to Emmaus' is much more likely to be looking for the material currently in the article Emmaus (or Resurrection appearances of Jesus) than this obscure group - so it should redirect there.--Aoratos 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Samuel Blanning and GRBerry for trying to explain. I'll try to track down some sources and create a better article. Any hints about what factors should go to notability: total participants, news coverage, web presence? Eluchil404 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard explanation for notability is Wikipedia:Notability. There are also eight specific topic guidelines and a number of essays or proposed guidelines linked in the navigation box on the right. The most relevant is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), but that is only a proposal in the process of forming consensus. I personally use a two part test - is there an explanation of why the topic is significant (a claim to notability) and is that claim verified in independent reliable sources? For independence, simple reprinting of press releases doesn't count, and neither do local program site websites. The first part of the test is enough to avoid speedy deletion, the second part is enough reason for me to keep in an AFD. GRBerry 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per GRBerry - the closing admin closed the AfD fairly. Kimchi.sg 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, handled justly. PJM 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks again to GRBerry for pointing me to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) which I had missed. Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? We don't need to hold a discussion of where it should redirect of DRV. Eluchil404 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus to delete, with 75% in favour. Seems like a fairly-dealt AFD. Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. No obvious reason to question sysop's judgement call. Nothing has changed significantly since the article was deleted that suggests that relisting would now give a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Per request, I've userfied the deleted content of this article to User:Eluchil404/Walk To Emmaus. If it should be decided, now or later, that the article should be restored, then the history of this page should be moved back into its original place. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within discretion. Metamagician3000 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

14 June 2006

Lost: The Journey

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey
• Overturn and delete. The final tally was six deletes, one transwiki, one merge/delete, and one keep. However, closing admin Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to act on his own initiative to countermand the consensus, stating instead there was no consensus because he felt that the one "keep" vote's reasoning was strong enough. I frankly don't follow his logic or understand what he found so notable about the one keep vote, but I think he's enforcing his own opinion over the decided-upon community consensus with this article, and thus appeal his decision here (as he invited people to do when closing the decision). — Mike • 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A review of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus does not appear to yield any means by which seven out of nine votes — votes that were very clearly not made in bad faith — can be entirely discarded by the closing admin. — Mike • 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that numerical majorities are final. The delete voters put limited effort into the discussion. One person puts some effort into a vote and someone complains that an article wasn't deleted by vote. Ansell 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• I welcome review of this one, because it was dicey for me when I made the call. I acknowledge that numerically, the margin was wide. I don't think any of the comments (NOT votes) were made in bad faith at all, and didn't diacount the sentiments, but I was quite convinced by the argument made by ArgentiumOutlaw and after all, this is a judgement call, not a nose count. Naturally I think I got to the right outcome and would say Keep kept. But I welcome input from my peers, and thank you in advance for it. (BTW I'm excited, because this is my first DRV!) ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean this respectfully, but when reviewing the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators document, I did not see anything within the document, barring bad faith situations, that allows an administrator to ignore the principle of rough consensus when making a decision closing a document. There is the paragraph that begins, "Some opinions can override all others," but the examples cited (copyvio, userfy, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV) do not seem to apply to the votes comments cast. — Mike • 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have some learnings from this I'll be posting later as well as more responses but I'll let some of those sit. I do have one thing I want to point out which you'll just have to take my word for. Several commenters here are saying I let my personal feeling convince me how to close. Well, in part, that's where judgement does need to come in, on a close call, add in your own feeling... that's sometimes right and proper in my view (if the alternative is to relist for consensus the third time or do nothing, for example). But in this case, my PERSONAL view, had I chose to commment (on a 5 day overdue for close nom) instead of close... would have been DELETE. Clips are a bit more notable than regular episodes but I do not think any show, even this one, needs an article for every episode. I overlooked that view, because thought at the time that the fact that MedCab/Com was working on this was a reason not to rush this, leave it around, and let them resolve it later. (others below point out that's not necessarily a really good reason...). Also, the medcab argument was made late in the discussion. Arguments made late, if not commented on by people that commented before they were aware of the facts, tend to carry more weight with me when judging consensus. And make no mistake, I was judging consensus without taking my personal desire to delete into account. If this goes back on AfD I'll leave it to someone else to close, so I can comment DELETE. I just don't think that was the right thing to do in view of the mediation thing. If it gets overturned, I'll delete it myself and happily, unless someone beats me to it. One BIG learning I have from this already is the need to explain in more detail when necessary (check out Splash's Phil Sandifer close explanation, it's a model. I hope to be that good someday)... ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, I fail to see what was so strong about the one keep comment that ruled out six delete comments. (Disclaimer: I voted delete in the AfD in question.) BryanG^(talk) 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Now that the article has been largely rewritten, I feel my original concerns no longer apply. Keep rewritten article; however I want it clear that I still do not endorse the original closure. Feel free to relist if you want, although I would now vote to keep. BryanG^(talk) 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Seven, actually. There was a merge/delete in there. — Mike • 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not really a valid vote. You can't merge *and* delete, the edit history needs to be preserved. Closers typically count those as keep votes, since they wanted to keep the content, just didn't understand the finer points of the GFDL. Transwiki votes go as keeps too, while we're at it, since the person also wanted to keep the content. --W.marsh 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And that's why I didn't count the merge/delete vote, although looking at it again I would interpret it as "merge if considered useful or delete". But then, I'm not an admin. It wasn't a straight delete comment anyway, so I'm not counting it as such. BryanG^(talk) 03:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks W.marsh. SO if we ARE insisting on counting votes here, it's 6:3. That's 66% which is a Keep No Consensus. I have a couple of other bones to pick here... first, Mike you keep talking about good faith, and I wish you would stop, because I saw no comments I judged to be in bad faith. Second, you keep citing the Deletion Guideline like it's a process that cannot be deviated from. It's not the law, it's a guide... and we admins are asked to use our judgement. I hope you have internalised that before you become an admin yourself. Third, you suggest I'm "enforcing my own opinion"... "countermanding consensus"... that's not at all fair, those terms are quite loaded, in my view anyway. What I did was look at the arguments made, look at the article and its contents, and made a considered judgement that there wasn't a consensus to delete. That's what the closing admin is supposed to do. This article was 4 days overdue for a decision and I've been thinking about it for some time (I looked at a lot of these on my lunch hour). I also asked some of my admin colleauges on IRC for their thoughts and they agreed with me that K-NC was the right outcome. I'm hopeful that some of them will pop in here. Maybe I'm wrong though and this really was a Delete. I'd like to learn from it if that's the case... but telling me to read something that's a guide, and that I've already read, isn't going to help me learn. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I am citing good faith solely in the context of the deletion guidelines citing bad faith as a valid reason to delete. I am not applying the concept of good or bad faith to your actions. I am bringing it up solely in the context of citing the relevant policy and guidelines that address the actions you take when closing a vote.

Second, I would again repeat my request for any Wikipedia policy or document that provides administrators with the freedom to use their judgment to make a decision that goes against rough consensus when making deletion closures. The relevant cites I can find indicate that in the deletion policy, it states, "At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains." Rough consensus is defined as outlined in this subsection, with a link to this Wikipedia article.

Third, were we to make the case that a vote, through some improper terminology, should not be included, it should not be included in the total when considering what proportion of the votes are delete votes. In other words, it is not that six out of nine votes were cast to delete, it is that six out of seven votes (85%) were cast to delete. But I really don't agree with those figures, either. That leads me into ...

Fourth, I disagree that the merge/delete vote should not be counted. The text of that vote states, "Merge anything useful into the main Lost article ... otherwise Delete if there is nothing that editors of that article consider to be useful." I believe the text of that vote quite effectively counts as a delete vote. That would make this seven out of eight votes (87.5%).

— Mike • 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since we don't count votes, it still doesn't matter. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was never my intention to count votes, I just did not find the one keep comment persuasive enough to close as "no consensus", given no one else shared this opinion. Of course, the rewritten article makes the whole thing moot for me. BryanG^(talk) 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure well within his discretion, especially considering you can argue that the votes were 3/9 in favor of keeping, and that's a marginal consensus to delete at best. Lar probably should have just said "no consensus" though - since that is different than closing as a pure keep (now more than ever, see the recent changes to Wikipedia:Speedy keep). --W.marsh 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Point of information, it was a Keep No Consensus not a pure keep. Both the close in AfD and the notice on the article talk say Keep No Consensus... ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. The article is bare, but this aired on ABC and Lost has lots of viewers. That lends enough notability that it can be mentioned somewhere imo, and AFD is not the best place to decide merging. Kotepho 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment You're commenting on content, not on process — see above: "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." — Mike • 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  I did both and there is plenty of commenting on content to go around on DRV. Kotepho 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Then I'd ask whatever admin who will review these items and make a decision to ignore your response, given that you're explicitly and self-admittedly not going by WP:DRV policy. — Mike • 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Policy wonking this way is probably not really appropriate here. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This has also been listed on today's AfD page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey (second nomination)). As far as I see, there has been no consensus to relist, so I've asked for it to be speedily closed pending the results of this DRV. BryanG^(talk) 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

*Overturn and delete - with all due respect to the closing admin, I reread ArgentiumOutlaw's point on AFD and I do not see what is convincing about it. He points out that the writer did a good job and that mediators are debating what to do with individual episode articles. Well, as to the first point, a "good job" is not a bar to deletion and as to the second point, unless I'm missing something, this is not an episode. For the benefit of those above debating my "merge and delete" vote (opinion, whatever), I didn't say "merge and delete". Please reread my comment. I said "Merge anything useful ... otherwise delete". In other words, "merge OR delete", not "merge AND delete". BigDT 04:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. I, too, fail to see what is so overwhelming about the sole keep vote, and part of the admin's comment -- I'd keep a clip show before a random episode, if I were commenting -- means that a peculiar personal preference was used as part of the reasoning. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I've read the original and the rewrite (which I hadn't before), and I'm astonished the the closing admin thought the original had the slightest shred of merit to it. The rewrite is better, but that's not saying much: a description of it as an hour-long "Previously on..." recap, with some OR analysis in the article to justify it as something meaningful. Confirm original vote. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, solid explanation from closing admin plus the fact that articles of this nature (major television episodes) are generally kept or merged. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist or delete. Only one keep vote, and its reasoning is extremely weak ("this is a well-written article" does not make the topic noteworthy, and "we're still discussing it" does not make it noteworthy either!); yes, admins are expected to use their judgment, not a raw votecount, to determine consensus, but this was a dubious closure.
  • Not sure who this was... We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'd have preferred if Lar had voted, rather than closing the discussion, since he clearly had a distinct opinion in his own right which, even if valid, didn't correspond to that of any of the users involved. Too often admins will close Deletion discussions in accordance with however they would have voted, rather than in accordance with the discussion itself. If your interpretation of what should be done with the article is unusual enough that people will be surprised by how you close the discussion, you'd probably be better off joining the discussion, so people can read and respond to your reasoning first, rather than just cutting it off with your opinion as the "last word". -Silence 05:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. Also, if I had been commenting I would have commented delete. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There were two points I was making when I voted to Keep. The second point I made was that the article shouldnt have been up for deletion, if you see Requests for mediation, you'll see that there is a mediation committee voting to determine whether or not "Lost episodes each deserve an individual article". If they decide on keeping all episodes in one big article, then the committee will override any AFD decisions made on that one article. Same with the opposite case (ie if they decide every episode deserves a seperate article). Their decision may actually make any decision we reach here useless. Ignoring that, the first reason I gave for keeping, was that I thought the information there was thorough, accurate, and useful. As for the final outcome of keep on the AFD, I personally think we should put aside our "common sense" and go with the majority vote, 'but' through all of my experiences with AFDs and the like, I've realized that in wikipedia votes don't really matter, discussion and consensus determines the victor. I wouldn't dare say that my argument is more sensible than the opposing side because they made an equally legitimate point. So it's really a judgment call on which side brought up the more solid argument. ArgentiumOutlaw 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the absence of a mediation ruling, you can still preserve the solo article in your user space. In either outcome, you would need to have the information at hand. However, no one part of the deliberative process can overturn another, as they should have different targets. The mediation is about whether in the future/final form, there should be a single or breakout presentation and shouldn't be concerned with "should this particular article be deleted." AfD shouldn't be saying anything much about whether the future should look like X or Y, but rather judging a single article in terms of the deletion policy. I.e. during a mediation, pretty much everything should have gone into a sort of escrow space. Geogre 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete. Closing comments an absolutely travesty. "We don't nose count" so I'm siding with a minority of one". Ridiculous. -- GWO

• The closing comments were, theoretically, in line with: a) policy, b) AfD closure best practices, c) using one's [expletive not inserted, but I'm tempted] brain. If you think that sort of comment is inappropriate, you should not be participating in AfD, because the sort of mindset you're displaying here is detrimental to the process and, as a result, Wikipedia as a whole. I would not have closed the way Lar did, but of all the reasons to overturn his close (some of them good), "the admin said what he was supposed to, but I didn't like it" appears not one, not twice, not even three times ... in fact, it doesn't appear at all. That's because it's a very stupid reason indeed. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Absolute travesty"? "Ridiculous"? Tell us how you really feel... ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete - Should have taken part in the discussion rather than just closed with his own saintly admin view. - Hahnchen 09:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Saintly? Thanks! But no. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Everyone knows I don't nose-count either, but there was a clear consensus for deletion. It is not the case that the 'merge and delete' and 'transwiki' opinions could count as 'keep'. "Transwiki" means "This shouldn't be on Wikipedia" and "Merge and delete" means "Some of this might belong in the main article but not here", and both amount to "This Wikipedia article should not exist". The sole keep argument wasn't remotely close to being powerful enough to overturn the near-unanimous consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The recreated article shouldn't be deleted, at least not as a G4 recreation, but my criticism of the closing stands. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as supported by all credible arguments to policy & guidelines in the AfD; transwiki to Lostpedia if GFDL compatibility allows and if they want it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete Reliance on single keep argument unconvincing Bwithh 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete I voted to transwiki in the original AfD thinking that it was possible to transwiki to Lostpedia. Apparantly it is not, so you can count my vote as a delete in the original AfD. —Mets501 (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: Lar was acting within his scope, but my feeling is that the article was weak enough or damaged enough that, at the very least, the article could not exist in that form and at that location and pass peer review in terms of the deletion policy. Sometimes we have to say, "Wikipedians are wrong, but we'll do the delete and work on getting the information presented in a better or more logical way." This would be one of those cases: people voting on AfD could be entirely wrong, but, in the absence of something really crazy, their wrong position should probably prevail. Geogre 12:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: my vote was the overturn and delete after the article is copied into user space pending the outcome of the mediation. I.e. delete, because AfD was clear, but I recommend that the authors and involved parties hold the material. We had a not dissimilar situation with articles on every cricket match in a year. Geogre 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We don't vote. But I agree that the mediation issue may not have been correctly interpreted by me at the time. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The closure statement makes clear that, rather than acting within discretion on the merits of the debate, the admin was effectively imposing his own views on it instead. Should have participated in it, in that case. Furthermore, the arguments to delete are easily as compelling as the argument given to keep, and though we don't nose count, we do pay attention to the reasons why a number of people may have reached the same conclusion. I should also say that I don't think a wriggle of "no consensus" applies here. There's an obvious enough consensus among the participants, it's just that the admin didn't like it too much. If Lar wanted to spin the debate his way, he should probably simply have declared a straight "keep". I just discovered from User talk:Lar that Lar discussed this with others in IRC. That's fine, but one should remember that being trendy and brutal and treating AfD as a stupid bunch of idiots is extremely fashionable there, and that decisions made based on who goes "yay" to earn a laugh on IRC are generally decisions made poorly and in haste. -Splash - tk 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfD can't really withstand such a completely different article. It would need a new debate. It's hardly for DRV to mandate an AfD of an article it was never asked to review; that's for an editor to do on their own initiative. So I think now there should be no action. -Splash - tk 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping you'll revise and extend your remarks to clarify some of the possibly misleading statements above in view of what we discussed on your talk page, Splash... ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, as per Mike and others above. It seems that a consensus in favor of deletion was ingnored. PJM 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Or, that when I evaluated it, I (possibly incorrectly) did not find consensus. Please assume good faith. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No stones thrown from this glass house - I do assume GF. Just commenting based on my perspective. PJM 17:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist on AfD, AfD isn't a straw count and no good reason was advanced for deletion. IMO, closing admin probably did the right thing. Still, retention/deletion could be argued either way... recommend a fresh AfD.--Isotope23 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete; I agree with Lar that 1 suggestion can override seven other ones. However, I do not find this particular one convincing at all. - Liberatore(T) 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Notice: The article has now substantially been re-written to address the issues it previously had, excising the Original Research, and adding verifiable, sourced content. It is no longer the same article that was AfDed.--Leflyman^Talk 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. That article is RADICALLY different/better than the one here: here which was the article as it appeared just after the first AfD notice was placed. But remember that DRV is fundamentally not about article content, it's more about process. This new article (and specifically the fact that the editors have done a lot to show why it's notable) should not be used to evaluate whether the close was right or not, or whether how I closed it could stand improvement. IMHO anyway. I closed based in part on the article as it was then, which was not very good compared to how it is now, and commenters should keep that in mind when commenting. If the old article had been deleted I think it would be hard to argue that the new one is "substantially identical" and subject to a speedy under CSD criteria, so that it's now a lot better is fundamentally not relevant to whether the close was good or not. It DOES however have bearning on how a new AfD might do. I stand behind my assertion that I would have personally advocated Delete on it as it was then, if I had been commenting and if it were not for the mediation issue (as I contemplated it at the time) ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it does have a bearing on those suggesting "Overturn and delete" as such a "vote" is based on the discussion of the merits of the original article that was in place during the AfD, which in effect, has been deleted. This new article has almost entirely different content-- and thus the deletion of it would now be improper. It may be appropriate to re-open discussion as a fresh AfD based on this new version. --Leflyman^Talk 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with respect to the article itself, the overturns now may be partly moot, or alternatively no one would justifiably complain about the new content being re-added if the article WERE deleted. I'm still interested in seeing this discussion run its course so that those folk wanting to offer good, constructive feedback to me can do so and I can improve. That means taking some less useful ("ridiculous", "saintly" (can I be both at once?!!)) feedback as well, but that's a small price to pay. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete: 6 votes of 9 for deletion and one vote for merge is conditional with deletion in mind. And only one vote to keep. IMO it's a clean consensus and article must be deleted. MaxSem 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep: wait to see result of mediation on the episodes. Lost is a high profile series, and if result is to keep details there, keeping this would be consistent. Also, it's good to see "Not a vote" being carried through once in a while. Stephen B Streater 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure In terms of discussion, which is ultimately what AFD is, we have nobody who specifically referenced policy or guidelines and showed meeting or failure, so the strongest possible arguments were not made. The keep reference to a mediation is stronger than any of the other arguments made, most importantly stronger than the two subsequent arguments. (It is acceptable for the closing admin to assume that prior commentators were not aware of that mediation request.) Strength of reasoning is more important than strength of numbers, and no consensus equals keep. If the mediation fails, there is nothing to prevent sending this for another AFD, where the failure of the mediation would remove that argument. GRBerry 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is no law against re-listing this article for deletion if you disagree with the outcome. Silensor 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's moot now as the article has been completely rewritten and I seriously doubt anyone would want to delete the new article, but the second AFD was closed by the same admin who closed the first one ... which would tend to impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you rephrase that last part? What does "impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD" mean? It just doesn't make any sense to me although I read it a few times. As for the second AfD though, it's really quite meaningless to have a Deletion Review going (which can result in an action taken against the article) AND an AfD (which also can result in an action taken against the article) at the same time, so starting it was flawed and it needed to be speedy closed till this process concludes, as others have pointed out. I'm starting to suspect that WCityMike (who opened the second AfD, out of process) just really did not want this article here and is willing to do quite a bit to see it and other articles go away. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with objectivity or lead one to do rash or out of process things, or lose civility. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, nothing wrong with an admin using his discretion.-Polotet 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but do not endorse the closure of the AFD - now that the article has been totally rewritten, my reasons for advocating its deletion no longer exist. Now that the article is something wholly different than the original one that should have been deleted, we may as well close this DRV as the deletion (or lack thereof) being reviewed is moot. If someone thinks the new one should be deleted, they can relist it. (I would vote/opine/whatever to keep.) BigDT 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD. I see no real problem with Lar's clsoe, but I understand why people do. The new article is different, though, so it's worth another hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD. Geogre and Badlydrawnjeff both make good points here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per mike, Liberatore, and others above. Note: I voted delete in the original AfD, but find the article still merits deletion. Deleuze 12:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - relist on Afd if the deleters wan't. this is an awfully long discussion for a simple issue - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - if we are 'vote'-counting, it's 6 deletes, one transwiki (not a keep or a delete, and Lostpedia can't be transwikied to, so let's ignore the vote), and the one keep vote was nowhere near being any good (keep, as it took some effort?) I'm sorry, but it looks very much like Lars made a mistake here. Would be happy with a relist, providing it's not immediately pulled as 'not being in process'. Proto///type 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I think that consensus was incorrectly, even arbitrarily, established, but delete per the AfD would be inappropriate as the article has now been completely rewritten. Sandstein 06:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo without prejudice to any further AfD- since the article is now so different, this discussion is largely moot. However, if someone thinks the article in its current form should be deleted, they can take it AfD where it should not be met with the argument that it recently survived AfD. As it was a no consensus closure, that argument should not be used. Metamagician3000 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think it's perfectly fine to argue against an immediate AfD on a normal no consensus closure, but this would be an AfD on a DIFFERENT article... ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in AfD - Unjusted closure by admin --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure If deletionists want to base things on numerical majorities they should put effort into their discussion points. AfD is not a vote, it is that simple. Ansell 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006

User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster

These were both deleted out of process by Drini. They were taken to tfd, but had a keep consensus and were closed. He claims to have deleted it because he followed the official policy, but it doesn't meet the Deletion policy. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4 and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 5. No evil boxes was also closed because of defective listing. See this edit. They do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and the debates both resulted in a keep. Dtm142 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

as my comments were requested. I did quote policy and followed it. -- Drini 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation. There are some policies that are more fundamental than others (recall the five pillars) ? I followed them and thus I stand that I didn't act out of policy. If the lower policies are in contradiction with the fundamental ones, the fundamental ones take precedence.-- Drini 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To which fundamental policy do you refer? Be specific, please; I'm not a mind reader, and could not locate where you quoted policy in the deletion for the second (the deletion log just says "tfd"). Jay Maynard 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4. He quoted the policies there. Reguardless, it was out of process. Dtm142 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to end this userbox war with a community compromise, not have you look for reasons to delete stuff. If it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria or deletion policy, it doesn't get deleted. Dtm142 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete on the first and put the 2nd one up for user space adoption by someone who was linking to it. Here we go again. Guess I was a fool to hope that WP:GUS would calm the deletionists down. --StuffOfInterest 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and MfD the first because it had two parallel reviews going on on separate MfD dates. The closing admin for the June 5 version (Xoloz) attempted to close both as an unsalvagable mess, but somehow that closure became disassociated with the June 4 review. The June 5 closure contained an explicit note that keep was the likely result of a clean nomination and review. Having two simultateous reviews with opposite conclusions is reason enough to send it back for a single combined review, having two closures with opposite conclusions for a single review is also enough to send it back, and we have both here.. Overturn, undelete, and leave alone for the second, because it has survived two separate TfD reviews in the past month. (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 24 for the first TfD discussion, which was referenced in the second.) GRBerry 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Endorse for the second, when I tried to multi-task I got it wrong. The closers rationale isn't enough reason to prevent WP:GUS, but the argument by Nhprman was a better argument for deletion than any of the keep arguments (as the prior TfD closed with no consensus rather than a clear keep consensus). GRBerry 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Weren't we just here? Why are admins trying to torpedo the German userbox solution?? Jay Maynard 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and, yes, I'll support move User Gangster to userspace, per WP:GUS. Jay Maynard 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both, move User Gangster to userspace per WP:GUS. We try to navigate out of the userbox mess and to find a compromise (following Jimbo's suggestion) when suddendly some admins start torpedoing the entire effort. CharonX/talk 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete follow the German solution (supported by Jimbo as compromise). No reason for the deletion as they don't meet T1. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete both of these please find a better compramise Yuckfoo 01:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both and move the second to user space, per WP:GUS —Mira 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• The former was already in userspace. Dtm142 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I said move the second one to user space. —Mira 02:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted No evil. T1/G4 (Tony Sidaway). Kotepho 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  G4 does not apply for recreating a deleted userbox in userspace. T1 does not apply in userspace. Dtm142 03:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  1) Yes, it does. Read the rfar. 2) Yes, it does. This is a logical extention of the rfar. (If something is inappropriate enough that if it was deleted in Template: it should not be recreated in User:, anything that would meet said criteria would still be inappropriate in User: even had it not been deleted in Template: previously.) Saying "no it doesn't" is not going to convince anyone and it does not make it true. Kotepho 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and deal with per WP:GUS. Kotepho, I wouldn't argue that these boxes can't be speedied - they certainly can - but I would argue that they shouldn't be, if the goal is to end the userbox controversy with a minimum of collateral damage. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Changing my vote to relist on MfD for the first and endorse deletion for the second. I should have looked more carefully at first; what a crap box. Thanks Kimchi.sg, for caling attention to that. I'd vote to delete either on MfD or TfD, but only the first one deserves its week there. Refraining from speedying all but the most egregious boxes would be a great good-faith gesture on the part of userbox deletionists. The gangster box though, really has no redeeming value. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let me just say ... oh thank god I don't care about this shit anymore. It's sooooo much more relaxing. Ohh, you all should try it, I'm in heaven over here. --Cyde?Weys 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete both, and Userfy the second one per WP:GUS. jgp 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first, WP:GUS Relist (TfD) the second one, and Remove Drini's admin rights for a week or two while we implement WP:GUS. _{No offense meant, Drini.} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem I'm used to people calling for admins desysopping for doing The Right Thing (TM) and following policy.

• Question. Does T1 apply in userspace or not? I'm seeing conflicting opinions on that issue. Anyone care to back theirs up with a link? Either way, T1 doesn't apply to the first one at all. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  There are different 'interpretations'. T1 became policy without sitting through the normal proposal and consensus procedures because it was endorsed by Jimbo. Jimbo has repeatedly said that the 'problem' is that things in the template namespace might be considered to be 'supported' by Wikimedia, and thus userboxes stating a disputed viewpoint should be moved to user space. Since 'T1' became policy because Jimbo said it should I don't see how it can be 're-interpreted' to mean something directly contradictory to Jimbo's position and still retain it's validity as a policy. The alternate view is apparently that you cannot transclude disputed viewpoints... you can have them directly on your user page, but not transcluded in from a sub-page in user space or anywhere else. This is based on an interpretation of the word 'template' in T1 being meant to cover 'anything transcluded' rather than 'things in the Template: namespace' as Jimbo has advocated. But then, Jimbo also said, "don't go on any sprees deleting", and we've seen how well some people listened to that. --CBDunkerson 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. MaxSem 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist the first on MfD and keep deleted and prohibit userspace creation of Template:Gangster. "This user is a gangster" is a statement which has strong intimidating overtones (unlike "This user is a homosexual" or even "This user hates the EFF") and I would protest even if one were to just write it on his user page in plain form. Template:Gangster goes beyond the acceptable bounds of good taste and should not be retained even in user space. Kimchi.sg 06:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Which policy, aside from T1 or G4, does the second violate? If there's something besides those two, then I'll support deleting it. Jay Maynard 12:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per above.  Grue  06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete first, germanize gangster and be done with it. Misza13 ^{T C} 08:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first. Keep the second deleted - the second one was in template space and was fair game for deletion. If someone wants to userfy it they should feel free to do so. There are admins who will assist. Metamagician3000 11:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first per WP:GUS, Endorse deletion the 2nd. Gangster template is simply unacceptable. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first and Userify the second per WP:DEUTSCH. — CJewell (talk to me) 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Deletions were out of process and contradictory to apparent consensus at TfD/MfD. Seemingly no applicable policy for deletion. --CBDunkerson 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and userfy if necessary. Nobody who has been paying attention here would have expected these speedies to go unchallenged - and thus they were improper speedy deletions. Please remember --Speedy Deletion is not a Toy 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

for the record, it wasn't a speedy deletion (if you look at that definition) it was just a normal deletion, where I applied fundamental policies to close a TFD. Can people stop callign this a speedy? Nowadays people just like to say it without stopping to consider that. For it to have been a speedy, I would have to delete on sight as I saw it withouth doing the whole TFD thing. 00:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an out of process deletion. They were already closed with a keep consensus and a defective listing before you closed them again and deleted them. Fundamental policies can be referenced during a tfd, but to determine the outcome, you look at what the community says and the deletion policies. I don't care if you delete it if it goes through an mfd with a delete consensus. Dtm142 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They were already closed with a keep consensus . MM. No. Majority doens't always mean consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Drini 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Any deletion which does not come as the result of an unchallenged 'prod' or consensus in a delete discussion is, by default, a 'speedy' delete... taken solely on the perogative of the admin performing the deletion without implied (per 'prod') or direct (per '*fD') consensus. As to your citation of the pillars - your action violates pillar four for certain (acting directly contrary to consensus is not 'cooperative') and is as much against pillar one (in that starting pointless fights over window dressing disrupts building the encyclopedia) as for it (in that the boxes in question did not build the encyclopedia). --CBD 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete 1st & Userify 2nd as mentioned a few times. --Scandalous 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy as per what Jimbo says is reasonable about the German solution. The idea that Drini could close so many TfD's with a generic closing message about the five pillars when really they were not for one, all relevant, and two, all followed by the action. Ansell 11:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy User:gangster.. this is absolute racism against minority. undelete now--Bonafide.hustla 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete - they weren't templates, so speedying them as T1 was inappropriate. I think it's hilarious that the mantra of those pushing the German plan was that it would end the UBX wars because once in template space, administrators would magically stop deleting things out of process. BigDT 23:09, 17 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)

• Endorse closure. If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide here. By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even if User:Robertsteadman were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited this source, a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! Xoloz 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Wikipedia's general understanding of copyright. The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to). Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own. Geogre 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and Project Gutenberg is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests. Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- SCZenz 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - how on earth did anyone even consider deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? Metamagician3000 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You did read the copyright discussion, right? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Wikipedia:Public domain was incorrect (which one user was). Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- SCZenz 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not discussing the merits of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. Metamagician3000 03:38, 17 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".

19 June 2006

Sick Nick Mondo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick Nick Mondo

The decision of delete has led to the article causing problems among wrestling notability requirements as the wrestler in question, Nick Mondo, has had a DVD about his wrestling career released and is filming documentaries on wrestling. He is also, among the indy and hardcore wrestling scenes, considered especially notable. The article has then been pointed to as a sort of "if Nick Mondo wasn't worthy of an article then X isn't worth either". Another issue is the article already exists at Nick Mondo and can't be made into a redirect because it was protected. --- Lid 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge contents of Sick Nick Mondo into Nick Mondo and redirect. The existence of the article at Nick Mondo was not mentioned on the AfD, and as such it is reasonble to presume the voters in this low-participation AfD were not aware of it. Both "Nick" and "Sick Nick" articles contain assertions of notablity, but there are different ones such that I feel there is information to merge. I think a redirect from one to the other would be fine, I take the "do not redirect" comment in the afd to be referring to earlier suggestion that it should be redirected to Brownian motion. Redirects from nicknames are standard practice - see Category:Redirects from alternate names, I don't think the redirect will need protecting. Thryduulf 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See above: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm agreeing with the close, and commenting on why I think it was valid (I did not vote at AfD but can see the deleted content). Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.

This user is interested in drugs.

This user is not interested in drugs.

Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just recreate it in userspace. DRV isn't necessary for that. See WP:GUS; it might even already be there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Userfy if not already userfied; Endorse closure if already userfied. jgp (T|C) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've posted the last three versions of this template before it was deleted. They're rather different from one another. Note the first links to a user category that probably ought to be deleted along with most user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though it would be nice if history can be preserved when it is being userfied. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering over 750 users link to this template, it would be nice to at least have a redirect of some sort if it is to be recreated in user space. The first version above is the correct one. --Pascal666 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. And re-point the existing links to the new location (perhaps per AWB?). CharonX/talk 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and put in the triage section at the bottom of TfD until user pages are modified by a bot. Ansell 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted from template space per T2 and German solution. Someone may userfy by all means per German solution, if that has not already been done. Metamagician3000 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore/Move to user space and then delete the template page or replace it with Template:GUS UBX to (after correcting links, of course). —Mira 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per the fact that this is not T1 and per Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion. -- Where 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS to preserve history. Though this userbox should not exit in template namespace any longer. Acceptable replacement of {{deletedpage}} is {{GUS UBX to}}. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS. Guess we have to cleanup and recover the wounded from some of the past battles. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant [who has no contributions whatsoever other than his stance on this subject], Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon[ymous] comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.

  What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?

  And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirt pudding

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding

• Undelete and comment The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Wikipedia obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. Baked Alaska).
• Endorse closure, keep deleted.There is a consensus—one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus—that recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is not comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in most comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back at least to 1921. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the WP:V and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports 1210 pages on Baked Alaska and six on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closing admin: I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding, and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A5. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks. There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's. Geogre 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Makharinsky

• Delte and comment. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a review for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. Interlingua ^talk 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (again) of self-evident vanispamcruftisement. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, Dezhnev (talk · contribs), is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, User:GOY2006, is also Makharinsky. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. Metros232 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse properly closed AfD. Keep deleted. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar, the quoted result was keep, but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.

So Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD without prejudice. In this case I think the closing comment: "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting" seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. NoSeptember 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. Metamagician3000 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) Will (message me!) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus is probably right conclusion by the deleting admin but deleting the article this way and said it was a result of AfD is wrong. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This entry has now been recreated and redirected to Daily Kos by User:Hipocrite. I don't have issues with the action, but I have issues that the action was taken without/against consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The redirect isn't sufficient, imo, because that page doesn't contain the information from the blanked page (and shouldn't). If/when the page is recreated it will probably need to be protected from User:Armandoatdailykos, but that's another issue to take up later. Dori 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  DRV is not the place to pick the version of the article. I think people mean to say, undelete the history, let people edit the page, and start a discussion on the talk page to decide what the article should look like, or if it should be a redirect. NoSeptember 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I guess that's shorthand for "Unprotect so that it can be reverted to the last unblanked version". Reverting is not an admin job, unprotecting is. ~ trialsanderrors 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh? Reverting is not an admin's job? Perhaps I am misreading your post here... KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  I parsed that as, "any editor can do the reverting, once the article is unprotected, but it takes an admin to unprotect it. Reverting isn't an admin's job specfically." It's not a comment on what admins can and cannot do. · rodii · 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, rodii. ~ trialsanderrors 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mooted by recreation in appropriate version without GFDL violations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • False The minimum required is to undelete the history of this article, so that comments can be properly merged into "Daily Kos" when it is agreed as to what is proper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

Overturn And Keep:As I stated in the dicussion for propsed deletion against the NN statement a(fter I figured out how to get there)I showed an excerpt of a NYT article that stated the band.It said: I have changed the page because look I just joined and still finding out what happens.For the non notable band issue I have an excerpt for the New York Times which states the band.(NYT Article):

Like MTV, it is starting to create stars that glow brightly within its own universe. The band Hollywood Undead, which did not exist three months ago, has achieved celebrity thanks to MySpace. "We were just a bunch of loser kids who sat around our friend's house all day, and we started making music and recording it on computer," one of its vocalists, Jeff Phillips, said.

About two months ago the group posted a page on MySpace decorated with pictures of all seven members disguised in hockey masks and other forms of concealment. They also included a few original songs, a fusion of heavy metal and hip-hop. "In a matter of weeks it got huge, and it kept on getting bigger and bigger," said Mr. Phillips, whose left earlobe was splayed open enough to accommodate a hollow ring the size of a wedding band.

"It's been maybe nine weeks, and we've had over a million plays. We have 60,000 people who listen to it every day. It's crazy. If you look at our page, it's like we're a huge band that's toured a hundred times."

Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract."

This can be found on their myspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogPHman (talk • contribs) ."

I didn't know half of the things people were stating as I am a new user.I KNOW THAT DOESN"T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO IGNORENCE BUT PLEASE ONE MISTAKE FORGIVE ME.Please recreate the article as I didn't mean to vandalize or create any problems.Thank you for your time.

• Relist:Had proven wrong the NN charge against the band NYT Article on Myspace BlogDogPHman 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• The correct link for the blog entry above is [79]. This is an article in the New York Times about Myspace generally which briefly mentions the band, not an article about the band itself. This is the fifth time an article has been created for this band, and it's been through AfD, with the consensus of "delete". There was considerable discussion of whether the band was notable because of its presence on Myspace, and the conclusion was that it wasn't. That conclusion might be worth re-examining, but we went through a full AfD back in April. And the band still hasn't actually issued an album, although they keep talking about doing so. I suggest leaving them deleted until they meet some WP:BAND criteria. Maybe someday they'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone without ever having issued their music on a physical record medium. But they're not there yet. --John Nagle 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This version in my opinion goes much further in adressing concerns of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall article quality, and it was deemed unfit for Wikipedia by an AfD consensus; I have no reason to suspect anything went wrong during the AfD, nor do I feel that this NYT article presents any claim of notability not formerly addressed in the AfD. In essence, Wikipedia exists to document bands and individuals that have already acheived fame, not to help bands acheive fame (as is MySpace's purpose). Unless some new evidence can be presented, I see no reason to restore. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with AmiDaniel's analysis. Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. I think the five previous AfDs pretty clearly prove consensus on this issue. Deleuze 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract." - in other words, they have zero records released. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, should be speedy deleted on sight. Extreme keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: At least this band makes its money online, so it makes sense that they'd believe that Wikipedia is a good place to increase visibility, but it isn't. Some MySpace bands are going to be huge, some became huge, but we should be behind the curve and inherent conservative and non-speculative, if we're a reference work at all. WP:MUSIC therefore requires records, record deals, and distribution (getting the platters in the Wal*Mart). When that happens, it will be time for the backward-reporting Wikipedia article. Geogre 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

16 June 2006

Sadullah Khan

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadullah Khan

The AfD on this biography received very few votes. In total, exactly two "delete" votes from registered editors (and one from an anonymous IP). I came across the AfD and article five days later than the other voters, and realized that although the article was badly written, it addressed a distinctly notable person who very easily passes both the "author test" and the "professor test". I voted "strong keep", and also cleaned up the article at least enough to more clearly indicate the notability of Mr. Khan. A version that I have further touched up (slightly) is temporarily at: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sk

In my comment, I specifically requested that the closing admin at least extend the vote, if not simply close it as "no consensus". Given that the registered editors at most split 2 del/1 keep, "no consensus" would be the right action even without the request. But given that there's is no evidence that the original 2 delete voters looked at the cleaned up article, a deletion just seems premature. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Shane should have an article because he is a noteable and respectable australian journalist60.225.117.215 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis should be allowed to have an article because he is a highly noteable and very well respected Australian journalist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.117.215 (talk • contribs)

Note: Even though I believe this should be overturned, it appears this anon editor made an error and is discussing a different article. LotLE×talk

• Relist, given how few editors commented and how much work was done on the article during the AFD. -- Vary | Talk 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - closure was within discretion, and I'm not critical of it, but with so few votes and now a cogent challenge to the outcome, I think a further AfD with opportunity for a better debate is the safe way to go. Metamagician3000 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLE and MM3K ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reasonable notability has been established; articles deserves another chance. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I have no idea about the notability but I do feel the article deletion debate should have been resulted in "no consensus" --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, I nominated it. It was an oversight on my part not actually including a Delete. That would have made three registered users... and considering the wording of my nom, the admin may have just counted it as a delete vote anyway. If the person who asked for review has rewritten the article, then let him recreate it. I do not have a problem with him doing that, but I don't see a reason to overturn this AFD because IMO, the admin made the right decision at the time. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLe and MM3K. The article was significantly improved during the AfD to the extent the early votes can be discarded as out-of-date. Even without this, I would have either relisted or closed as no-consensus. Thryduulf 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

File:944 h.jpg

This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "Courtesy of Indiana University." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name? I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. --Jpbrenna 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted from Commons, and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at Deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually can now Will (message me!) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woa! Well, would you look at that! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Wikipedia Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. CharonX/talk 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• The image deletion is recent enough to make undeletion possible. I think the best action would be to contact User:Essjay (who deleted it), and make you case directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stone_Trek
• Overturn and Keep As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting WP:WEB, as it only needs to meet one of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [80], it was featured on G4TechTV [81], and even William Shatner plugs it on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at Newgrounds.com as well as StarLand.com, who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:WEB.

And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. MikeWazowski 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. Deleuze 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really asserting that the website for the Sci-fi Channel isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - Motor (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial works is the wording jeff. It's worded that way for a reason. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from outside the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - Motor (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - clearly meets WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in a new AFD (preferably) or Overturn and keep (per User:MikeWazowski's comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting WP:WEB that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. BigDT 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, WP:POINT accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
• The external links provided that supposedly meet WP:WEB did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that Site of the Week is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (Hahnchen) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Wikipedia articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. On G4TV.com, Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called plug by the All-Bran Man, which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive third from the bottom.
• As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of WP:WEB says "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - within discretion. Metamagician3000 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - Hahnchen 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Valid closure by deleting admin, no reason to overturn. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Hahnchen. — Mike • 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the mention on scifi.com does not meet WP:WEB. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - Nothing looks unusual or improper in AfD. ` LotLE×talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A spin-off of a spin-off cannot borrow the notability of the original: the cartoon version of "Joanie Loves Chachi" can't get "Happy Days"'s numbers. WP:WEB is not satisfied. Geogre 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber combat

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat
• Overturn and delete. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of WP:NOR — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it isn't a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
  • "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
  • "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
  • "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
  • "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
  • "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
  • "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
  • "It's interesting!"
  • "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
  • "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
  • "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
  • "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — Mike • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. Deleuze 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -R. fiend 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a Star Wars Insider ref and actual books Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? Kotepho 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, R. fiend seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - there was an obvious consensus to keep. MaxSem 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in WP:V, which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - this link in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own Star Wars Insider magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various Star Wars novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. MikeWazowski 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the quality of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — Mike • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[82] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[83], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[84], "More editing and cleanup can help."[85], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[86]. Also it should be noted that the nominator was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[87].
  Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, Yanksox ^(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. EVula 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - Motor (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. Kotepho 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. BryanG^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close. Properly closed based on the discussion. --JJay 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close per BryanG. —Mira 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. BigDT 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close followed policy.Geni 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per MikeW. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. Metamagician3000 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per consensus in AfD --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Original Research. --Improv 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —Mira 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to Wookiepedia, which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on fencing. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --John Nagle 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--Eloquence* 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Captainktainer * Talk 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. Barnas 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox (animator)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.

• Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board was deleted out of process and page protected by two admins, Nandesuka and Cyde. The former admits to ignoring all rules in deleting the page [88] while the latter provokes a Wikipedia:Wheel_war by undoing the actions of another administrator, Haukurth, that had the project restored because the original deletion was out of process. Cyde's justification of his actions is that the project is "crap". However, many editors and administrators pointed out that the project did not meet any of the CSD criteria. See the long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. A MfD was opened for the project, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board, but it was closed only 4 hours after it started when the normal procedure is 8 days. The result was declared a "speedy delete" by admin JDoorjam who voted for Deletion in the less than 4 hour debate. Objections were raised in the MfD to having the project deleted. As the founder of the Wikipedia:Conservative notice board, I would have liked to comment in the debate as well but I was away during that short period of time. Regardless of the MfD, admin Cyde deleted the project while the debate was still active at 16:57, June 15, 2006 (UTC) [89], surprising admin JDoorjam, who closed the debate at 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

Proposal: Restore the project page because of its out of process deletion. --Facto 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: The Wikipedia:Conservative notice board was modelled after the Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board. Project description: This is the LGBT/conservative notice board, for Wikipedians interested in articles related to LGBT/conservative topics. It should be noted that this is intended to be a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not a noticeboard solely for the use of LGBT/conservative Wikipedians. --Facto 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't care if it stays or goes, I was solicited to join up with it, but it wasn't a speedy candidate, so overturn and list at MfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - This page is a perfect example of a page that is used as a tool for ballot stuffing and political organising. It is not the only page that should go for these reasons, but it should be gone, and is presently gone for good reason. Pages like this that are destructive enough to the community need to be buried, and VfD is not the place to discuss it. --Improv 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; no good reason for keeping it, would be deleted by MfD anyway. Also a blatant POV noticeboard; there's no such thing as a exclusively conservative issue. A politics noticeboard would be better, as proposed on ANI. Johnleemk | Talk 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and seal with concrete. Such boards compromise NPOV fundamental principle of wikipedia and carry a big potential risk for misuse. -- Drini 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - vote-stuffing "noticeboards" harm the project and should be removed, with or without discussion. It is clear that the board was nothing more than an organized attempt at meatpuppetry. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This sort of thing has no place on wikipedia. --pgk^(talk) 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:IAR isn't necessary; this is enforcement of WP:NPOV, very clearly. -- SCZenz 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and let the community have a debate about it. NPOV doesn't apply outside article space. moink 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We have no need for a "WikiProject POV Pushing". --Carnildo 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Almost all my points were first raised at the administrative noticeboard, I'm summarizing what seems to me the most important parts of that discussion in order to explain my conclusion. This page had the same structure as Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. (This comparison board is now under MfD.) That would be reason to let the MFD run. However, the page creator appears to have violated WP:SPAM. To my eyes this is enough to endorse speedy deletion solely because of WP:SPAM violation despite parallel structure. The salting violates Wikipedia:Protection_policy#A_permanent_or_semi-permanent_protection_is_used_for:. (There is a counter argument citing WP:SALT that is easily overcome by reading the entire sentence cited.) By the time deletion review finishes, we'll have had an effective temporary protection. I agree that this protection does not meet permanent protection standards, so overturn only protection. Other boards were mentioned in the the ANI discussion, if the MFD for LBGT results in deletion they should receive MFDs also. If the LBGT MFD results in a keep, then the title could be well used, and should be unprotected for that purpose. GRBerry 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll admit I've only been here for six months, but could you explain why telling people about a group that highlights articles of a particular interest meets the WP:SPAM policy? The only part of that article I can find that some might think applies is "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Which Facto most certainly did not do. DavidBailey 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  Telling people in general wouldn't have been a problem. A notice at the "New pages seeking contributors" section of Wikipedia:Community Portal would have been fine. So would have been putting notice up on a couple of highly watched talk pages (say, the abortion/pro-life article talk pages). The problem is the mass invitations to editors that "identify as a conservative Wikipedian" (quote from the invitations). These are people already known to have a certain point of view. Immediately, they are targetted to participate on the discussion of this community portal, ultimately to participate in the various action items. It would have been poor form and risk of a spam block for Facto, but probably not a problem for the notice board, had he gone through the 20 most recent contributors of major edits to a couple of relevant articles. GRBerry 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Should have gone through MfD normally. I don't know why people think it's better to speedy delete, annoy a bunch of people, and have it out on DRV/ANI etc. for 2 weeks when it could just go to MfD for a week. --W.marsh 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. I find it very odd that it's okay to have interest groupings about geography or sexual orientation, but not about political views. Considering that anyone can be part of any of them and monitor its activities, assuming that an interest group about political issues is automatically going to be abused seems not well thought out. And if Wikipedia policy is what is driving some admins to determine that it should be removed, at least the policies should be followed when deleting it, don't you think? DavidBailey 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD. The speedy looks to me like it was a spur-of-the-moment thing sparked by the potential political aspect of the situation, which is understandable yet probably not the best response to the situation. Having said that, I'm concerned about having boards like this for *any* type of advocacy or organizing - the LGBT board looks like it could (not saying it HAS, or that its role is intended this way) be a flashpoint for vote-stacking and other problems. If we were to have general notice boards for broad topics - such as the Politics notice board someone suggested - it might work out. Tony Fox (speak) 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy restore and reopen the MfD. DRV is not for discussing whether something belongs on WP or not, it's for discussing whether the deletion was within the bounds of policy. I'd like for someone to cite a speedy deletion criteria that justifies the early closure of the MfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think it is normally reasonable to close the xFD for a speedy deleted x. That happens all the time for AFDs. I'm not looking closely enough into the timing to know when the closure occured in the sequence of delete-restore-delete&salt. If prior to the first restore, the closure is reasonable. If after the restore, the closure may not be appropriate. GRBerry 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted or rename it and recreate it with less of a polarizing philosophy behind it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Recreated (not by me) as Wikipedia:Politics notice board. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  That was me. I suggested it at WP:AN/I and there seemed to be a generally favorable reaction so I went ahead. Still can use some polishing, but there shouldn't be any 'NPOV' issues if it covers all sides of the spectrum. --CBD 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I am cautiously optimistic that the politics notice board will not serve a harmful role to the encyclopedia. --Improv 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I, however, am more doubtful. Take a look at the "Articles with disputes" section: Ann Coulter, Pro-life, Homosexual agenda, Special rights, Nuclear family, Gay rights opposition. Exploding Boy 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Feel free to add some of your own. Many of these political articles have become fairly POV-biased and need exposure to a wider audience and further editing work. DavidBailey 03:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for obvious reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Which obvious reasons? The out-of-process speedy? The incomplete MfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The creator of this project, despite his claims, revealed his purpose for forming the noticeboard when he spammed over 50 editors with the following message (emphasis mine):

  Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board.

  I only regret that I exercised leniency and did not give Facto a block for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. I ignored all rules and deleted it because I honestly thought the deletion would be absolutely uncontroversial given the clear and patent POV-pushing nature of the project. I hold no rancor towards those who want to run it through the whole process, but it's clear that even most of those who wanted to see this go through MfD planned to vote "delete." So let's just skip to the part where we agree that while POV pushing happens, we shouldn't provide a home for it on the Wikipedia namespace. Nandesuka 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW should never be cited, certainly not in a situation like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Was obviously not a good-faith creation, but rather was spurred by the VFD page on Opposition to homosexuality. Exploding Boy 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion partisan vote-stacking effort. Deletion was quite appropriate. -M^ask 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - there shouldn't be a noticeboard for a specific POV. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE: this has been recreated by the same person as Wikipedia:Politics notice board and deleted under G4. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wrong, Tony, I did not recreate the project. Another admin moved the page and restored it. I suggest you apologize immediately for wheel warring and undo your harmful and disruptive actions to Wikipedia. --Facto 03:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll make no apology for redeleting that trash, though had I known that it had been undeleted rather than recreated I would not have done so. Since that is a technicality and the page must remain deleted, I will not restore it. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Tony? Apologize for harmful and disruptive actions? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week. Jay Maynard 11:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fine, but G4 doesn't apply to speedies directly, or we'd never be able to resurrect anything speedied since it'd be a recreation. Thus the appearance of the "met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place" bit (which got rather masticated in the refactoring of CSD a while back) - a re-speedy under pseudo-G4 is, in fact, a speedy under some other criterion. I'm not just ruleslawerying; the usual intent of G4 is to keep e.g. AfD'd material deleted, rather than arbitrarily speedied material. -Splash - tk 02:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    G4 applies to all valid deletions. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Tony, I think you may be over-reacting. You could have just as easily removed any of the postings in the politics notice board that you thought were not appropriate, made suggestions and otherwise help it evolve into something reasonable. People were acting on good faith, based on discussion. People network all the time in many ways. As long as they engage in discussion with others, networking is not a bad thing. -- Samuel Wantman 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record (again), >I< undeleted and rewrote the page following discussion at AN/I and here which seemed to be in favor of the idea. I then indicated that I had done so here, on ANI, and on the talk page of the notice board itself. As to the whole 'G4' argument... are we seriously process-lawyering over how the process applies to situations where the process is being ignored? We tossed process out the window when this was deleted... and again when most of the deletion reviewers did not respond on the basis of whether normal process was followed. We could debate whether or not 'Conservatism' and 'Politics' are "substantially identical" (e.g. 'G4'), but I'd really rather just fix this before the disruption gets any worse. Is a 'Politics notice board' really 'more biased' than a 'LGBT notice board'? So much so that it must be nuked on sight rather than improved to a more neutral presentation? --CBD 10:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Some admins are so busy deleting that I think it has been missed that a great solution has been presented that I believe will work. See Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board#New Version. Basically, create the Political notice board, then create sub-pages related to specific areas of interest within politics- IE- minimum wage, abortion, etc. This way, they are not liberal or conservative, and are both neutral while allowing those who are interested in a specific political topic to maintain a board on that specific topic. DavidBailey 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore as per DavidBailey --Strothra 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD per Tony Fox. Why, exactly, was this a candidate for speedy deletion the first time? Jay Maynard 02:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore All these cabals um, groups joined together by common interests ought be deleted, but deleting some but not others, seemingly based upon the sociopolitical perspectives of the deleting admins rather than according to a consistent application of policy, would be the very worst outcome. I'll change my stance if and when equally partisan - and, frankly, more controversial and less mainstream - projects appear to be on their way to deletion.Timothy Usher 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh n03s! Teh C4BALZ! --mboverload@ 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Hope that works for you.Timothy Usher 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Restore and discuss. Because this has been moved to a more neutral setting, it is no less worthy of respect than Wikipedia:Schoolwatch. While I disagree with ballot stuffing, I have no issue with a place where people of common interests can gather. Denni ☯ 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD - where I would be inclined to vote "delete", but not until I've had a chance to have a good look at it and think about the debate. Metamagician3000 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore - invalid speedy delete candidate, needs community input. Davodd 05:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted BUT -- Hipocrite made a very good suggestion during the MfD that got utterly lost in the noise. I suggested burning the thing and starting anew; He said, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism seems like a good place to do so. Allow me to suggest that articles like Edmund Burke, Conservatism and Social Darwinism would be GOOD articles to focus on. This makes sense to me -- and is far more in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps this would be a good idea, but for the circumstances after the spamming, where we have a posse of political conservatives gathered by the spammer, all looking for a suitable page to use for networking. This has to be stamped out first, then in a few months, if there is a group of historians or politican scientists on Wikipedia who want to form such a wikiproject, let them go ahead. --Tony Sidaway 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not encourage elitism on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's slogan is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Editors should not have to be historians or "politican scientists" [sic] to form a WikiProject about conservatism. I would also like to know how such a group could exist without the use of invitations. And why would we need to wait months to start a WikiProject? I created the project in one day and it was deleted out of process in less than half a day. --Facto 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (repeated from above) Some admins are so busy deleting that I think it has been missed that a great solution has been presented that I believe will work. See Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board#New Version. Basically, create the Political notice board, then create sub-pages related to specific areas of interest within politics- IE- minimum wage, abortion, etc. This way, they are not liberal or conservative, and are both neutral while allowing those who are interested in a specific political topic to maintain a board on that specific topic. DavidBailey 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore for out-of-process deletions. Without ever having seen it, it seems to me more likely than not that it has no place on Wikipedia, but it certainly merits a full *fD debate. Sandstein 06:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted And repeat my suggestion that if people are interested in conservative topics, they link to Edmund Burke, not to Ann Coulter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly object to these out of process speedy deletions. They cause far more harm to Wikipedia than having a 'bad' page hang around for a few days. It should have been left to go through the MFD process, so restore and send to MFD. Petros471 09:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Per Metamagician, Petros471, W.Marsh, et al, restore and send to MfD as these speedy deletions are divisive. Technically a case could be made that it qualifies under some CSD or another but that case hasn't been made here yet to my satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per DavidBailey. Also, performing an out-of-process speedy deletion should be grounds for immediate desysopping--it's one of the most gratuitious abuses of admin powers possible. jgp (T|C) 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This page has no connection, however remote, with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free social networking site. Sysop actions were reasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not endorse the deletion, however, as it was clearly intended as a vote-stacking device, keep deleted BigDT 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a foothold for POV-pushing and factionalism that we don't need, and Nandesuka was right to delete it. JDoorjam Talk 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - And I'm kind of sad to see so many people valuing process over fundamental policies like "Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia". Process changes over time, the goal does not. This page was a transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism and deserved its fate. --Cyde↔Weys 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem I'm having with this, Cyde, is that other noticeboards, including the one upon which this was based, are also "transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism[s]". As Tom harrison said on the noticeboard, we tend to see this more clearly when we disagree with the message presented. Others may take issue with process, about which I've no opinion. My questions are about purpose. It's hard to imagine a more efficient way to manipulate Wikipedia content across a very large number of pages than by allowing some partisan factions to thrive while others are, by whatever process, deleted. I hate to say it, but this is how this looks to me. Applying clear and consistent standards would remove the appearance of partiality.Timothy Usher 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hello, can we just close this now? It's embarrassing to see this bad faith appeal against the deletion of a blatantly bad faith attemot to enlist Wikipedia for a partisan cause drag on, and more and more editors being hauled into it honestly believing, in that face of incontrovertible evidence of malice, that the proponent intended something other than what he actually did: to gather together a bunch of people he personally had identified as politically biased with the intent of influencing Wikipedia. Let's just delete this and salt the earth. Too many of us have bee misled and lied to. Failing that, let's go to Jimbo and ask for guidance. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whose appeal you considered bad faith, but mine is certainly not. I wholly concur with the your sentiment regarding this particular noticeboard, but I'd suggest we compile a list of all allegedly similar noticeboards, Guilds and Alliances to be considered as a group.Timothy Usher 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, go to policy and try to establish a policy outlawing them all. But here we have a palpable, incontrovertible example, not some wild handwaving accusations, of one page created and populated out of bad faith. Let's deal with this and move on, knowing that the principle is a good one, to wipe out the others. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. There has been at least one admin who claimed to justify a userbox deletion on the ground of consistency; if that's his goal, then I would expect those other noticeboards to receive the same treatment as this one at his hands. Jay Maynard 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If you know the admin. ask him (if he didn't vote to delete this one) why he didn't vote to delete this one. Wikipedia is not consistent--that's a given. We don't refrain from doing the right thing just because somebody else didn't do the right thing. There lies the road to partisanship. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not naming him because the specific admin is not relevant; I'll let him step forward if he wishes (preferably with a speedy delete of the other pages, whatever they may be). Jay Maynard 23:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well you make an accusation against one admin and choose to generalise that to all admins by implication. You refuse to name that admin, but did you, at the time, bring the problem to his attention? If none of these is true I would happily suggest that your accusation is worthless and that, lacking the good faith to identify the case, you yourself are engaged in a bad faith action, smearing all administrators by the reported action, which you refuse to substantiate, of a single administrator. I suggest that you withdraw your accusation, having refused outright to support it. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Okkay, fine. User:Metamagician3000, care to comment, since you're the one who cited consistency as a desirable thing? (If you look, you'll see that he agreed with my proposed resolution of this DRV.) Now, Tony, would YOU care to retract YOUR accusation of bad faith? I tried to avoid dragging that other admin into this, but since you insisted... Jay Maynard 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I do think that pages such as this belong at MfD, and that's how I voted above, and how I would probably vote in similar cases. But I also realise this one was deleted in good faith by a respected admin after due consideration, and on grounds that I have some sympathy for. End of story, really. Metamagician3000 02:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony, of couse, being that this would likely be close to gone at this point had the MfD been allowed to run its course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The spam message of its creator pretty much let the cat out of the bag as to the reason for its creation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and permit the full discussion at MfD. It's impossible to rationally discuss this w/o seeing it.--Kchase02 T 03:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Seems detrimental to the interests of a NPOV Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Recommend larting for overturn voters. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted with fire and extra brimstone. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the danger of vote stacking, coordinating edit wars and such, even unintentionally, is too great. I'm not too crazy about some of the projects/noticeboards used as comparisons, either. -- Kjkolb 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted... can't endorse this deletion enough. While the nominator notes that this is very similar to the LGBT project, it's telling that there is no anti-LGBT project. If we vote Keep on this project, there will undoubtedly be a Liberal project created in retaliation, and it can only go south after that. --kizzle 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Over at WP:AFD, they're holding slow, reasoned debates over articles much less worthy than this one. This page is far too controversial for the speedy procedure. Admins should confine themselves to using them only in uncontroversial situations. Vadder 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Why are we voting? Instead of having a discussion? In particular, why are we voting in the only wikipedia venue that only requires 50%+1 to delete something? Restore, relist, talk. - brenneman ^{L} 04:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I do see a lot of discussion about. --Cyde↔Weys 04:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: vote stacking/edit war vehicle; record of spam violations. This is appropriate for usenet, not an encyclopedia. Fireplace 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted:vote stacking and spam violations. Come on guys, you know better than that. Thetruthbelow 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Drini, Fireplace, and discussion preceeding original deletion on AN/I[90] Disruptive, vote-stacking, created for a specific agenda, does nothing to improve and much to inflict harm upon the Encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per Facto. Either delete all or allow all pages devoted to specific interests, whether they be conservative or gay/lesbian or, as I just discovered, Iranian. --Mantanmoreland 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Atromitos

Was speedily deleted, but after reviewing the history I cannot find the reason why. Tone seems to be inactive, so I'm bringing it here. Conscious 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Odd. User:MetroStar dumped a whole bunch of incorrect tags on it ({{copyright}}{{spam}}{{advertisement}}{{copyright}}{{delete}}!) without an edit summary in sight. Tone then deleted, probably in one of the occasional lapses of checking histories etc. I can find no evidence of copyright violation, and the circumstances are dubious to say the least, so I've restored and reverted. -Splash - tk 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, upon review, some large segments of Special:ContributionsMetroStar should not be trusted. -Splash - tk 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Close discussion, now undeleted by Splash. Sandstein 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Walk To Emmaus

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk To Emmaus
• Relist Only four editors commented on the article (3/1 for deletion) and there was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability. If the consensus is to endorse deletion I would appreciate a copy for my userspace, but idealy I think further discussion on AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• That is plenty to delete an article such as this, and there is no quorum for AfD. It was about some random "spiritual renewal program" that, at most, needed some mention in the article of the organisation that runs it for its 3 days [91], not the event of Biblical importance. Endorse deletion. -Splash - tk 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The organiization that runs it for it its three days Which one did you mean [92] [93] [94][95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] and that's just the communities in Texas that have their own web domains. What I would really like is for someone to explain to me more than just "nn delete". 10,000's of people have been on these reteats I think that makes them notable. Why do others think they are not? Eluchil404 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse it's enough - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• "There was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability"? There were no arguments presented for notability to discuss. None in the article, none in the AfD (Google searches and resulting hits are not a claim to notability, though Google can turn up reliable third-party sources, which can be), and none here so far. Endorse deletion at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 3 deletes, one redirect/cleanup. No serious arguments made either way. Deletion is acceptable, relisting for more input would have been acceptable, and anyone, including the nominator here, can do the redirect if they believe it appropriate. GRBerry 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - although this could usefully be recreated as a redirect to Emmaus--Aoratos 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually no, it should be redirected to Cursillo if anything, as it is the Methodist version of the program created because they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use the Cursillo name, among other things. It actually isn't a random religious thing, but as an offshoot of the Cursillo movement, it belongs in that article, or not at all. It is really not notable otherwise. It has nothing to do with actually "walking" or the town of Emmaus, so the above suggestion is illogical.pschemp | talk 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't illogical. I've no knowledge of the religious movement (it doesn't seem that notable - and others use the same name), however the phrase the 'walk to Emmaus' is notable as a common title for the pericope in Luke's narrative of the Resurrection. That's far more notable. Someone typing in 'walk to Emmaus' is much more likely to be looking for the material currently in the article Emmaus (or Resurrection appearances of Jesus) than this obscure group - so it should redirect there.--Aoratos 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Samuel Blanning and GRBerry for trying to explain. I'll try to track down some sources and create a better article. Any hints about what factors should go to notability: total participants, news coverage, web presence? Eluchil404 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard explanation for notability is Wikipedia:Notability. There are also eight specific topic guidelines and a number of essays or proposed guidelines linked in the navigation box on the right. The most relevant is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), but that is only a proposal in the process of forming consensus. I personally use a two part test - is there an explanation of why the topic is significant (a claim to notability) and is that claim verified in independent reliable sources? For independence, simple reprinting of press releases doesn't count, and neither do local program site websites. The first part of the test is enough to avoid speedy deletion, the second part is enough reason for me to keep in an AFD. GRBerry 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per GRBerry - the closing admin closed the AfD fairly. Kimchi.sg 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, handled justly. PJM 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks again to GRBerry for pointing me to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) which I had missed. Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? We don't need to hold a discussion of where it should redirect of DRV. Eluchil404 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus to delete, with 75% in favour. Seems like a fairly-dealt AFD. Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. No obvious reason to question sysop's judgement call. Nothing has changed significantly since the article was deleted that suggests that relisting would now give a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Per request, I've userfied the deleted content of this article to User:Eluchil404/Walk To Emmaus. If it should be decided, now or later, that the article should be restored, then the history of this page should be moved back into its original place. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within discretion. Metamagician3000 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

14 June 2006

Lost: The Journey

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey
• Overturn and delete. The final tally was six deletes, one transwiki, one merge/delete, and one keep. However, closing admin Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to act on his own initiative to countermand the consensus, stating instead there was no consensus because he felt that the one "keep" vote's reasoning was strong enough. I frankly don't follow his logic or understand what he found so notable about the one keep vote, but I think he's enforcing his own opinion over the decided-upon community consensus with this article, and thus appeal his decision here (as he invited people to do when closing the decision). — Mike • 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A review of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus does not appear to yield any means by which seven out of nine votes — votes that were very clearly not made in bad faith — can be entirely discarded by the closing admin. — Mike • 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that numerical majorities are final. The delete voters put limited effort into the discussion. One person puts some effort into a vote and someone complains that an article wasn't deleted by vote. Ansell 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• I welcome review of this one, because it was dicey for me when I made the call. I acknowledge that numerically, the margin was wide. I don't think any of the comments (NOT votes) were made in bad faith at all, and didn't diacount the sentiments, but I was quite convinced by the argument made by ArgentiumOutlaw and after all, this is a judgement call, not a nose count. Naturally I think I got to the right outcome and would say Keep kept. But I welcome input from my peers, and thank you in advance for it. (BTW I'm excited, because this is my first DRV!) ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean this respectfully, but when reviewing the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators document, I did not see anything within the document, barring bad faith situations, that allows an administrator to ignore the principle of rough consensus when making a decision closing a document. There is the paragraph that begins, "Some opinions can override all others," but the examples cited (copyvio, userfy, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV) do not seem to apply to the votes comments cast. — Mike • 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have some learnings from this I'll be posting later as well as more responses but I'll let some of those sit. I do have one thing I want to point out which you'll just have to take my word for. Several commenters here are saying I let my personal feeling convince me how to close. Well, in part, that's where judgement does need to come in, on a close call, add in your own feeling... that's sometimes right and proper in my view (if the alternative is to relist for consensus the third time or do nothing, for example). But in this case, my PERSONAL view, had I chose to commment (on a 5 day overdue for close nom) instead of close... would have been DELETE. Clips are a bit more notable than regular episodes but I do not think any show, even this one, needs an article for every episode. I overlooked that view, because thought at the time that the fact that MedCab/Com was working on this was a reason not to rush this, leave it around, and let them resolve it later. (others below point out that's not necessarily a really good reason...). Also, the medcab argument was made late in the discussion. Arguments made late, if not commented on by people that commented before they were aware of the facts, tend to carry more weight with me when judging consensus. And make no mistake, I was judging consensus without taking my personal desire to delete into account. If this goes back on AfD I'll leave it to someone else to close, so I can comment DELETE. I just don't think that was the right thing to do in view of the mediation thing. If it gets overturned, I'll delete it myself and happily, unless someone beats me to it. One BIG learning I have from this already is the need to explain in more detail when necessary (check out Splash's Phil Sandifer close explanation, it's a model. I hope to be that good someday)... ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, I fail to see what was so strong about the one keep comment that ruled out six delete comments. (Disclaimer: I voted delete in the AfD in question.) BryanG^(talk) 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Now that the article has been largely rewritten, I feel my original concerns no longer apply. Keep rewritten article; however I want it clear that I still do not endorse the original closure. Feel free to relist if you want, although I would now vote to keep. BryanG^(talk) 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Seven, actually. There was a merge/delete in there. — Mike • 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not really a valid vote. You can't merge *and* delete, the edit history needs to be preserved. Closers typically count those as keep votes, since they wanted to keep the content, just didn't understand the finer points of the GFDL. Transwiki votes go as keeps too, while we're at it, since the person also wanted to keep the content. --W.marsh 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And that's why I didn't count the merge/delete vote, although looking at it again I would interpret it as "merge if considered useful or delete". But then, I'm not an admin. It wasn't a straight delete comment anyway, so I'm not counting it as such. BryanG^(talk) 03:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks W.marsh. SO if we ARE insisting on counting votes here, it's 6:3. That's 66% which is a Keep No Consensus. I have a couple of other bones to pick here... first, Mike you keep talking about good faith, and I wish you would stop, because I saw no comments I judged to be in bad faith. Second, you keep citing the Deletion Guideline like it's a process that cannot be deviated from. It's not the law, it's a guide... and we admins are asked to use our judgement. I hope you have internalised that before you become an admin yourself. Third, you suggest I'm "enforcing my own opinion"... "countermanding consensus"... that's not at all fair, those terms are quite loaded, in my view anyway. What I did was look at the arguments made, look at the article and its contents, and made a considered judgement that there wasn't a consensus to delete. That's what the closing admin is supposed to do. This article was 4 days overdue for a decision and I've been thinking about it for some time (I looked at a lot of these on my lunch hour). I also asked some of my admin colleauges on IRC for their thoughts and they agreed with me that K-NC was the right outcome. I'm hopeful that some of them will pop in here. Maybe I'm wrong though and this really was a Delete. I'd like to learn from it if that's the case... but telling me to read something that's a guide, and that I've already read, isn't going to help me learn. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I am citing good faith solely in the context of the deletion guidelines citing bad faith as a valid reason to delete. I am not applying the concept of good or bad faith to your actions. I am bringing it up solely in the context of citing the relevant policy and guidelines that address the actions you take when closing a vote.

Second, I would again repeat my request for any Wikipedia policy or document that provides administrators with the freedom to use their judgment to make a decision that goes against rough consensus when making deletion closures. The relevant cites I can find indicate that in the deletion policy, it states, "At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains." Rough consensus is defined as outlined in this subsection, with a link to this Wikipedia article.

Third, were we to make the case that a vote, through some improper terminology, should not be included, it should not be included in the total when considering what proportion of the votes are delete votes. In other words, it is not that six out of nine votes were cast to delete, it is that six out of seven votes (85%) were cast to delete. But I really don't agree with those figures, either. That leads me into ...

Fourth, I disagree that the merge/delete vote should not be counted. The text of that vote states, "Merge anything useful into the main Lost article ... otherwise Delete if there is nothing that editors of that article consider to be useful." I believe the text of that vote quite effectively counts as a delete vote. That would make this seven out of eight votes (87.5%).

— Mike • 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since we don't count votes, it still doesn't matter. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was never my intention to count votes, I just did not find the one keep comment persuasive enough to close as "no consensus", given no one else shared this opinion. Of course, the rewritten article makes the whole thing moot for me. BryanG^(talk) 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure well within his discretion, especially considering you can argue that the votes were 3/9 in favor of keeping, and that's a marginal consensus to delete at best. Lar probably should have just said "no consensus" though - since that is different than closing as a pure keep (now more than ever, see the recent changes to Wikipedia:Speedy keep). --W.marsh 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Point of information, it was a Keep No Consensus not a pure keep. Both the close in AfD and the notice on the article talk say Keep No Consensus... ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. The article is bare, but this aired on ABC and Lost has lots of viewers. That lends enough notability that it can be mentioned somewhere imo, and AFD is not the best place to decide merging. Kotepho 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment You're commenting on content, not on process — see above: "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." — Mike • 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  I did both and there is plenty of commenting on content to go around on DRV. Kotepho 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Then I'd ask whatever admin who will review these items and make a decision to ignore your response, given that you're explicitly and self-admittedly not going by WP:DRV policy. — Mike • 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Policy wonking this way is probably not really appropriate here. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This has also been listed on today's AfD page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey (second nomination)). As far as I see, there has been no consensus to relist, so I've asked for it to be speedily closed pending the results of this DRV. BryanG^(talk) 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

*Overturn and delete - with all due respect to the closing admin, I reread ArgentiumOutlaw's point on AFD and I do not see what is convincing about it. He points out that the writer did a good job and that mediators are debating what to do with individual episode articles. Well, as to the first point, a "good job" is not a bar to deletion and as to the second point, unless I'm missing something, this is not an episode. For the benefit of those above debating my "merge and delete" vote (opinion, whatever), I didn't say "merge and delete". Please reread my comment. I said "Merge anything useful ... otherwise delete". In other words, "merge OR delete", not "merge AND delete". BigDT 04:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. I, too, fail to see what is so overwhelming about the sole keep vote, and part of the admin's comment -- I'd keep a clip show before a random episode, if I were commenting -- means that a peculiar personal preference was used as part of the reasoning. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I've read the original and the rewrite (which I hadn't before), and I'm astonished the the closing admin thought the original had the slightest shred of merit to it. The rewrite is better, but that's not saying much: a description of it as an hour-long "Previously on..." recap, with some OR analysis in the article to justify it as something meaningful. Confirm original vote. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, solid explanation from closing admin plus the fact that articles of this nature (major television episodes) are generally kept or merged. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist or delete. Only one keep vote, and its reasoning is extremely weak ("this is a well-written article" does not make the topic noteworthy, and "we're still discussing it" does not make it noteworthy either!); yes, admins are expected to use their judgment, not a raw votecount, to determine consensus, but this was a dubious closure.
  • Not sure who this was... We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'd have preferred if Lar had voted, rather than closing the discussion, since he clearly had a distinct opinion in his own right which, even if valid, didn't correspond to that of any of the users involved. Too often admins will close Deletion discussions in accordance with however they would have voted, rather than in accordance with the discussion itself. If your interpretation of what should be done with the article is unusual enough that people will be surprised by how you close the discussion, you'd probably be better off joining the discussion, so people can read and respond to your reasoning first, rather than just cutting it off with your opinion as the "last word". -Silence 05:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. Also, if I had been commenting I would have commented delete. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There were two points I was making when I voted to Keep. The second point I made was that the article shouldnt have been up for deletion, if you see Requests for mediation, you'll see that there is a mediation committee voting to determine whether or not "Lost episodes each deserve an individual article". If they decide on keeping all episodes in one big article, then the committee will override any AFD decisions made on that one article. Same with the opposite case (ie if they decide every episode deserves a seperate article). Their decision may actually make any decision we reach here useless. Ignoring that, the first reason I gave for keeping, was that I thought the information there was thorough, accurate, and useful. As for the final outcome of keep on the AFD, I personally think we should put aside our "common sense" and go with the majority vote, 'but' through all of my experiences with AFDs and the like, I've realized that in wikipedia votes don't really matter, discussion and consensus determines the victor. I wouldn't dare say that my argument is more sensible than the opposing side because they made an equally legitimate point. So it's really a judgment call on which side brought up the more solid argument. ArgentiumOutlaw 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the absence of a mediation ruling, you can still preserve the solo article in your user space. In either outcome, you would need to have the information at hand. However, no one part of the deliberative process can overturn another, as they should have different targets. The mediation is about whether in the future/final form, there should be a single or breakout presentation and shouldn't be concerned with "should this particular article be deleted." AfD shouldn't be saying anything much about whether the future should look like X or Y, but rather judging a single article in terms of the deletion policy. I.e. during a mediation, pretty much everything should have gone into a sort of escrow space. Geogre 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete. Closing comments an absolutely travesty. "We don't nose count" so I'm siding with a minority of one". Ridiculous. -- GWO

• The closing comments were, theoretically, in line with: a) policy, b) AfD closure best practices, c) using one's [expletive not inserted, but I'm tempted] brain. If you think that sort of comment is inappropriate, you should not be participating in AfD, because the sort of mindset you're displaying here is detrimental to the process and, as a result, Wikipedia as a whole. I would not have closed the way Lar did, but of all the reasons to overturn his close (some of them good), "the admin said what he was supposed to, but I didn't like it" appears not one, not twice, not even three times ... in fact, it doesn't appear at all. That's because it's a very stupid reason indeed. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Absolute travesty"? "Ridiculous"? Tell us how you really feel... ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete - Should have taken part in the discussion rather than just closed with his own saintly admin view. - Hahnchen 09:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Saintly? Thanks! But no. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Everyone knows I don't nose-count either, but there was a clear consensus for deletion. It is not the case that the 'merge and delete' and 'transwiki' opinions could count as 'keep'. "Transwiki" means "This shouldn't be on Wikipedia" and "Merge and delete" means "Some of this might belong in the main article but not here", and both amount to "This Wikipedia article should not exist". The sole keep argument wasn't remotely close to being powerful enough to overturn the near-unanimous consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The recreated article shouldn't be deleted, at least not as a G4 recreation, but my criticism of the closing stands. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as supported by all credible arguments to policy & guidelines in the AfD; transwiki to Lostpedia if GFDL compatibility allows and if they want it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete Reliance on single keep argument unconvincing Bwithh 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete I voted to transwiki in the original AfD thinking that it was possible to transwiki to Lostpedia. Apparantly it is not, so you can count my vote as a delete in the original AfD. —Mets501 (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: Lar was acting within his scope, but my feeling is that the article was weak enough or damaged enough that, at the very least, the article could not exist in that form and at that location and pass peer review in terms of the deletion policy. Sometimes we have to say, "Wikipedians are wrong, but we'll do the delete and work on getting the information presented in a better or more logical way." This would be one of those cases: people voting on AfD could be entirely wrong, but, in the absence of something really crazy, their wrong position should probably prevail. Geogre 12:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: my vote was the overturn and delete after the article is copied into user space pending the outcome of the mediation. I.e. delete, because AfD was clear, but I recommend that the authors and involved parties hold the material. We had a not dissimilar situation with articles on every cricket match in a year. Geogre 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We don't vote. But I agree that the mediation issue may not have been correctly interpreted by me at the time. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The closure statement makes clear that, rather than acting within discretion on the merits of the debate, the admin was effectively imposing his own views on it instead. Should have participated in it, in that case. Furthermore, the arguments to delete are easily as compelling as the argument given to keep, and though we don't nose count, we do pay attention to the reasons why a number of people may have reached the same conclusion. I should also say that I don't think a wriggle of "no consensus" applies here. There's an obvious enough consensus among the participants, it's just that the admin didn't like it too much. If Lar wanted to spin the debate his way, he should probably simply have declared a straight "keep". I just discovered from User talk:Lar that Lar discussed this with others in IRC. That's fine, but one should remember that being trendy and brutal and treating AfD as a stupid bunch of idiots is extremely fashionable there, and that decisions made based on who goes "yay" to earn a laugh on IRC are generally decisions made poorly and in haste. -Splash - tk 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfD can't really withstand such a completely different article. It would need a new debate. It's hardly for DRV to mandate an AfD of an article it was never asked to review; that's for an editor to do on their own initiative. So I think now there should be no action. -Splash - tk 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping you'll revise and extend your remarks to clarify some of the possibly misleading statements above in view of what we discussed on your talk page, Splash... ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, as per Mike and others above. It seems that a consensus in favor of deletion was ingnored. PJM 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Or, that when I evaluated it, I (possibly incorrectly) did not find consensus. Please assume good faith. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No stones thrown from this glass house - I do assume GF. Just commenting based on my perspective. PJM 17:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist on AfD, AfD isn't a straw count and no good reason was advanced for deletion. IMO, closing admin probably did the right thing. Still, retention/deletion could be argued either way... recommend a fresh AfD.--Isotope23 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete; I agree with Lar that 1 suggestion can override seven other ones. However, I do not find this particular one convincing at all. - Liberatore(T) 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Notice: The article has now substantially been re-written to address the issues it previously had, excising the Original Research, and adding verifiable, sourced content. It is no longer the same article that was AfDed.--Leflyman^Talk 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. That article is RADICALLY different/better than the one here: here which was the article as it appeared just after the first AfD notice was placed. But remember that DRV is fundamentally not about article content, it's more about process. This new article (and specifically the fact that the editors have done a lot to show why it's notable) should not be used to evaluate whether the close was right or not, or whether how I closed it could stand improvement. IMHO anyway. I closed based in part on the article as it was then, which was not very good compared to how it is now, and commenters should keep that in mind when commenting. If the old article had been deleted I think it would be hard to argue that the new one is "substantially identical" and subject to a speedy under CSD criteria, so that it's now a lot better is fundamentally not relevant to whether the close was good or not. It DOES however have bearning on how a new AfD might do. I stand behind my assertion that I would have personally advocated Delete on it as it was then, if I had been commenting and if it were not for the mediation issue (as I contemplated it at the time) ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it does have a bearing on those suggesting "Overturn and delete" as such a "vote" is based on the discussion of the merits of the original article that was in place during the AfD, which in effect, has been deleted. This new article has almost entirely different content-- and thus the deletion of it would now be improper. It may be appropriate to re-open discussion as a fresh AfD based on this new version. --Leflyman^Talk 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with respect to the article itself, the overturns now may be partly moot, or alternatively no one would justifiably complain about the new content being re-added if the article WERE deleted. I'm still interested in seeing this discussion run its course so that those folk wanting to offer good, constructive feedback to me can do so and I can improve. That means taking some less useful ("ridiculous", "saintly" (can I be both at once?!!)) feedback as well, but that's a small price to pay. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete: 6 votes of 9 for deletion and one vote for merge is conditional with deletion in mind. And only one vote to keep. IMO it's a clean consensus and article must be deleted. MaxSem 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep: wait to see result of mediation on the episodes. Lost is a high profile series, and if result is to keep details there, keeping this would be consistent. Also, it's good to see "Not a vote" being carried through once in a while. Stephen B Streater 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure In terms of discussion, which is ultimately what AFD is, we have nobody who specifically referenced policy or guidelines and showed meeting or failure, so the strongest possible arguments were not made. The keep reference to a mediation is stronger than any of the other arguments made, most importantly stronger than the two subsequent arguments. (It is acceptable for the closing admin to assume that prior commentators were not aware of that mediation request.) Strength of reasoning is more important than strength of numbers, and no consensus equals keep. If the mediation fails, there is nothing to prevent sending this for another AFD, where the failure of the mediation would remove that argument. GRBerry 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is no law against re-listing this article for deletion if you disagree with the outcome. Silensor 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's moot now as the article has been completely rewritten and I seriously doubt anyone would want to delete the new article, but the second AFD was closed by the same admin who closed the first one ... which would tend to impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you rephrase that last part? What does "impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD" mean? It just doesn't make any sense to me although I read it a few times. As for the second AfD though, it's really quite meaningless to have a Deletion Review going (which can result in an action taken against the article) AND an AfD (which also can result in an action taken against the article) at the same time, so starting it was flawed and it needed to be speedy closed till this process concludes, as others have pointed out. I'm starting to suspect that WCityMike (who opened the second AfD, out of process) just really did not want this article here and is willing to do quite a bit to see it and other articles go away. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with objectivity or lead one to do rash or out of process things, or lose civility. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, nothing wrong with an admin using his discretion.-Polotet 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but do not endorse the closure of the AFD - now that the article has been totally rewritten, my reasons for advocating its deletion no longer exist. Now that the article is something wholly different than the original one that should have been deleted, we may as well close this DRV as the deletion (or lack thereof) being reviewed is moot. If someone thinks the new one should be deleted, they can relist it. (I would vote/opine/whatever to keep.) BigDT 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD. I see no real problem with Lar's clsoe, but I understand why people do. The new article is different, though, so it's worth another hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD. Geogre and Badlydrawnjeff both make good points here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per mike, Liberatore, and others above. Note: I voted delete in the original AfD, but find the article still merits deletion. Deleuze 12:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - relist on Afd if the deleters wan't. this is an awfully long discussion for a simple issue - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - if we are 'vote'-counting, it's 6 deletes, one transwiki (not a keep or a delete, and Lostpedia can't be transwikied to, so let's ignore the vote), and the one keep vote was nowhere near being any good (keep, as it took some effort?) I'm sorry, but it looks very much like Lars made a mistake here. Would be happy with a relist, providing it's not immediately pulled as 'not being in process'. Proto///type 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I think that consensus was incorrectly, even arbitrarily, established, but delete per the AfD would be inappropriate as the article has now been completely rewritten. Sandstein 06:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo without prejudice to any further AfD- since the article is now so different, this discussion is largely moot. However, if someone thinks the article in its current form should be deleted, they can take it AfD where it should not be met with the argument that it recently survived AfD. As it was a no consensus closure, that argument should not be used. Metamagician3000 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think it's perfectly fine to argue against an immediate AfD on a normal no consensus closure, but this would be an AfD on a DIFFERENT article... ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in AfD - Unjusted closure by admin --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure If deletionists want to base things on numerical majorities they should put effort into their discussion points. AfD is not a vote, it is that simple. Ansell 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006

User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster

These were both deleted out of process by Drini. They were taken to tfd, but had a keep consensus and were closed. He claims to have deleted it because he followed the official policy, but it doesn't meet the Deletion policy. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4 and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 5. No evil boxes was also closed because of defective listing. See this edit. They do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and the debates both resulted in a keep. Dtm142 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

as my comments were requested. I did quote policy and followed it. -- Drini 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation. There are some policies that are more fundamental than others (recall the five pillars) ? I followed them and thus I stand that I didn't act out of policy. If the lower policies are in contradiction with the fundamental ones, the fundamental ones take precedence.-- Drini 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To which fundamental policy do you refer? Be specific, please; I'm not a mind reader, and could not locate where you quoted policy in the deletion for the second (the deletion log just says "tfd"). Jay Maynard 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4. He quoted the policies there. Reguardless, it was out of process. Dtm142 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to end this userbox war with a community compromise, not have you look for reasons to delete stuff. If it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria or deletion policy, it doesn't get deleted. Dtm142 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete on the first and put the 2nd one up for user space adoption by someone who was linking to it. Here we go again. Guess I was a fool to hope that WP:GUS would calm the deletionists down. --StuffOfInterest 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and MfD the first because it had two parallel reviews going on on separate MfD dates. The closing admin for the June 5 version (Xoloz) attempted to close both as an unsalvagable mess, but somehow that closure became disassociated with the June 4 review. The June 5 closure contained an explicit note that keep was the likely result of a clean nomination and review. Having two simultateous reviews with opposite conclusions is reason enough to send it back for a single combined review, having two closures with opposite conclusions for a single review is also enough to send it back, and we have both here.. Overturn, undelete, and leave alone for the second, because it has survived two separate TfD reviews in the past month. (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 24 for the first TfD discussion, which was referenced in the second.) GRBerry 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Endorse for the second, when I tried to multi-task I got it wrong. The closers rationale isn't enough reason to prevent WP:GUS, but the argument by Nhprman was a better argument for deletion than any of the keep arguments (as the prior TfD closed with no consensus rather than a clear keep consensus). GRBerry 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Weren't we just here? Why are admins trying to torpedo the German userbox solution?? Jay Maynard 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and, yes, I'll support move User Gangster to userspace, per WP:GUS. Jay Maynard 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both, move User Gangster to userspace per WP:GUS. We try to navigate out of the userbox mess and to find a compromise (following Jimbo's suggestion) when suddendly some admins start torpedoing the entire effort. CharonX/talk 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete follow the German solution (supported by Jimbo as compromise). No reason for the deletion as they don't meet T1. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete both of these please find a better compramise Yuckfoo 01:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both and move the second to user space, per WP:GUS —Mira 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• The former was already in userspace. Dtm142 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I said move the second one to user space. —Mira 02:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted No evil. T1/G4 (Tony Sidaway). Kotepho 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  G4 does not apply for recreating a deleted userbox in userspace. T1 does not apply in userspace. Dtm142 03:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  1) Yes, it does. Read the rfar. 2) Yes, it does. This is a logical extention of the rfar. (If something is inappropriate enough that if it was deleted in Template: it should not be recreated in User:, anything that would meet said criteria would still be inappropriate in User: even had it not been deleted in Template: previously.) Saying "no it doesn't" is not going to convince anyone and it does not make it true. Kotepho 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and deal with per WP:GUS. Kotepho, I wouldn't argue that these boxes can't be speedied - they certainly can - but I would argue that they shouldn't be, if the goal is to end the userbox controversy with a minimum of collateral damage. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Changing my vote to relist on MfD for the first and endorse deletion for the second. I should have looked more carefully at first; what a crap box. Thanks Kimchi.sg, for caling attention to that. I'd vote to delete either on MfD or TfD, but only the first one deserves its week there. Refraining from speedying all but the most egregious boxes would be a great good-faith gesture on the part of userbox deletionists. The gangster box though, really has no redeeming value. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let me just say ... oh thank god I don't care about this shit anymore. It's sooooo much more relaxing. Ohh, you all should try it, I'm in heaven over here. --Cyde?Weys 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete both, and Userfy the second one per WP:GUS. jgp 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first, WP:GUS Relist (TfD) the second one, and Remove Drini's admin rights for a week or two while we implement WP:GUS. _{No offense meant, Drini.} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem I'm used to people calling for admins desysopping for doing The Right Thing (TM) and following policy.

• Question. Does T1 apply in userspace or not? I'm seeing conflicting opinions on that issue. Anyone care to back theirs up with a link? Either way, T1 doesn't apply to the first one at all. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  There are different 'interpretations'. T1 became policy without sitting through the normal proposal and consensus procedures because it was endorsed by Jimbo. Jimbo has repeatedly said that the 'problem' is that things in the template namespace might be considered to be 'supported' by Wikimedia, and thus userboxes stating a disputed viewpoint should be moved to user space. Since 'T1' became policy because Jimbo said it should I don't see how it can be 're-interpreted' to mean something directly contradictory to Jimbo's position and still retain it's validity as a policy. The alternate view is apparently that you cannot transclude disputed viewpoints... you can have them directly on your user page, but not transcluded in from a sub-page in user space or anywhere else. This is based on an interpretation of the word 'template' in T1 being meant to cover 'anything transcluded' rather than 'things in the Template: namespace' as Jimbo has advocated. But then, Jimbo also said, "don't go on any sprees deleting", and we've seen how well some people listened to that. --CBDunkerson 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. MaxSem 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist the first on MfD and keep deleted and prohibit userspace creation of Template:Gangster. "This user is a gangster" is a statement which has strong intimidating overtones (unlike "This user is a homosexual" or even "This user hates the EFF") and I would protest even if one were to just write it on his user page in plain form. Template:Gangster goes beyond the acceptable bounds of good taste and should not be retained even in user space. Kimchi.sg 06:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Which policy, aside from T1 or G4, does the second violate? If there's something besides those two, then I'll support deleting it. Jay Maynard 12:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per above.  Grue  06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete first, germanize gangster and be done with it. Misza13 ^{T C} 08:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first. Keep the second deleted - the second one was in template space and was fair game for deletion. If someone wants to userfy it they should feel free to do so. There are admins who will assist. Metamagician3000 11:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first per WP:GUS, Endorse deletion the 2nd. Gangster template is simply unacceptable. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first and Userify the second per WP:DEUTSCH. — CJewell (talk to me) 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Deletions were out of process and contradictory to apparent consensus at TfD/MfD. Seemingly no applicable policy for deletion. --CBDunkerson 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and userfy if necessary. Nobody who has been paying attention here would have expected these speedies to go unchallenged - and thus they were improper speedy deletions. Please remember --Speedy Deletion is not a Toy 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

for the record, it wasn't a speedy deletion (if you look at that definition) it was just a normal deletion, where I applied fundamental policies to close a TFD. Can people stop callign this a speedy? Nowadays people just like to say it without stopping to consider that. For it to have been a speedy, I would have to delete on sight as I saw it withouth doing the whole TFD thing. 00:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an out of process deletion. They were already closed with a keep consensus and a defective listing before you closed them again and deleted them. Fundamental policies can be referenced during a tfd, but to determine the outcome, you look at what the community says and the deletion policies. I don't care if you delete it if it goes through an mfd with a delete consensus. Dtm142 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They were already closed with a keep consensus . MM. No. Majority doens't always mean consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Drini 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Any deletion which does not come as the result of an unchallenged 'prod' or consensus in a delete discussion is, by default, a 'speedy' delete... taken solely on the perogative of the admin performing the deletion without implied (per 'prod') or direct (per '*fD') consensus. As to your citation of the pillars - your action violates pillar four for certain (acting directly contrary to consensus is not 'cooperative') and is as much against pillar one (in that starting pointless fights over window dressing disrupts building the encyclopedia) as for it (in that the boxes in question did not build the encyclopedia). --CBD 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete 1st & Userify 2nd as mentioned a few times. --Scandalous 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy as per what Jimbo says is reasonable about the German solution. The idea that Drini could close so many TfD's with a generic closing message about the five pillars when really they were not for one, all relevant, and two, all followed by the action. Ansell 11:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy User:gangster.. this is absolute racism against minority. undelete now--Bonafide.hustla 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete - they weren't templates, so speedying them as T1 was inappropriate. I think it's hilarious that the mantra of those pushing the German plan was that it would end the UBX wars because once in template space, administrators would magically stop deleting things out of process. BigDT 23:09, 17 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)

• Endorse closure. If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide here. By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even if User:Robertsteadman were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited this source, a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! Xoloz 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Wikipedia's general understanding of copyright. The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to). Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own. Geogre 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and Project Gutenberg is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests. Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- SCZenz 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - how on earth did anyone even consider deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? Metamagician3000 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You did read the copyright discussion, right? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Wikipedia:Public domain was incorrect (which one user was). Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- SCZenz 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not discussing the merits of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. Metamagician3000 03:38, 17 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".

19 June 2006

Sick Nick Mondo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick Nick Mondo

The decision of delete has led to the article causing problems among wrestling notability requirements as the wrestler in question, Nick Mondo, has had a DVD about his wrestling career released and is filming documentaries on wrestling. He is also, among the indy and hardcore wrestling scenes, considered especially notable. The article has then been pointed to as a sort of "if Nick Mondo wasn't worthy of an article then X isn't worth either". Another issue is the article already exists at Nick Mondo and can't be made into a redirect because it was protected. --- Lid 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge contents of Sick Nick Mondo into Nick Mondo and redirect. The existence of the article at Nick Mondo was not mentioned on the AfD, and as such it is reasonble to presume the voters in this low-participation AfD were not aware of it. Both "Nick" and "Sick Nick" articles contain assertions of notablity, but there are different ones such that I feel there is information to merge. I think a redirect from one to the other would be fine, I take the "do not redirect" comment in the afd to be referring to earlier suggestion that it should be redirected to Brownian motion. Redirects from nicknames are standard practice - see Category:Redirects from alternate names, I don't think the redirect will need protecting. Thryduulf 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

18 June 2006

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist) Stated result was "delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway". The actual result was no consensus, although there were issues with meat puppets on both sides. WP:AUTO is not grounds for deletion, only if it violates neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines. No rationale was provided by the administrator, and on follow-up he only offered "The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it." I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not, but the administrator (same as on two reviews below) should try to adhere to the standards and put in a good faith effort to determine consensus rather than impose his own opinion. I therefore request Relisting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, and also request Relisting. I was the editor who questioned the original deletion summary, as indeed the result was no consensus, only to receive the vague and non-responsive follow-up mentioned above. The AfD discussion brought up arguments on both sides, including numerous notability arguments in support of keeping it. Isarig 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Article fails to establish anything above and beyond what is implied by "venture capitalist", is autobiographical, and serves no evident purpose other than to promote the subject's businesses. No prejudice against later creation of a properly encyclopaedic article which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 06:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See above: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. ~ trialsanderrors 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm agreeing with the close, and commenting on why I think it was valid (I did not vote at AfD but can see the deleted content). Just zis Guy you know? 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - action within admin discretoinary power. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, well within admin's discretion. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. WP:AUTO is damn good grounds for deletion as it implies a failure to meet WP:N in the vast, vast majority of cases (most don't even come to AfD), and there is no reason to believe that this article was an exception. Sole activity of note to the public appears to be writing a blog for which no arguments for notability have been presented, the rest is his resumé, with no evidence that his companies meet WP:CORP either. Arguments to keep amount to so much armwaving that I'm surprised the limbs in question didn't fall off. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Drug-free

This user is drug-free.

This user is interested in drugs.

This user is not interested in drugs.

Speedied under t2 (not policy). --Pascal666 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just recreate it in userspace. DRV isn't necessary for that. See WP:GUS; it might even already be there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Userfy if not already userfied; Endorse closure if already userfied. jgp (T|C) 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've posted the last three versions of this template before it was deleted. They're rather different from one another. Note the first links to a user category that probably ought to be deleted along with most user categories. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Though it would be nice if history can be preserved when it is being userfied. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering over 750 users link to this template, it would be nice to at least have a redirect of some sort if it is to be recreated in user space. The first version above is the correct one. --Pascal666 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace per WP:GUS. And re-point the existing links to the new location (perhaps per AWB?). CharonX/talk 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and put in the triage section at the bottom of TfD until user pages are modified by a bot. Ansell 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted from template space per T2 and German solution. Someone may userfy by all means per German solution, if that has not already been done. Metamagician3000 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore/Move to user space and then delete the template page or replace it with Template:GUS UBX to (after correcting links, of course). —Mira 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per the fact that this is not T1 and per Wikipedia:Strict constructionist deletion. -- Where 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS to preserve history. Though this userbox should not exit in template namespace any longer. Acceptable replacement of {{deletedpage}} is {{GUS UBX to}}. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy per WP:GUS. Guess we have to cleanup and recover the wounded from some of the past battles. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheSmartMarks.com

Undelete and Comment The admin said "The result of the debate was working around the anon comments and the like" which isn't really true. There were three non-anonymous users who argued that it be kept (me, Kernoodle, and Voice of Treason) and there were 8 non-anonymous users who argued that it be deleted (WAVegetarian, Oakster, Whomp, Mrrant [who has no contributions whatsoever other than his stance on this subject], Rory096, Sandstein, TruthCrusader, and McPhail), one of whose opinion was disregarded (TruthCrusader) because his position on the subject wasn't neutral, so it was really 3 to 7. The statement that "the result of hte debate was working around the anon[ymous] comments" is not true, and there is clearly a marked disagreement (3-7). If you want to count non-anonymous users who voted, the total tally is 8 to 9 in favor of it being deleted. It is asinine to argue that an 8-to-9 concensus should be enough to have an article deleted and if you want to go by the 3-7 tally, that is still unfair because nearly one third of the people argued that it be kept.JB196 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There's a clear supermajority even when the socks are gone (70% is within discretion), and the only case that this site was encyclopedic was because it evolved from another site mentioned in passing in the history of a marginally encyclopedic author's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  AMIB thanks for the response. What is it that makes you refer to anybody as sockpuppets? Just because htey're anonymous IPs doesn't mean they're sockpuppets of another user. Please WP:ASG in the future until there is evidence to indicate that one user is using multiple IPs.

  What is your criteria for "within discretion"? Which users are in your opinion "within discretion" and which are not?

  And lastly, what exactly is that "clear supermajority" because as I indiacted in my previous post, there doesn't appear to be a majority either way, which points to the conclusion that the article should be kept.JB196 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  They weren't sockpuppets as in they were all the same user; they were clearly meatpuppets rounded up on the forums. Same difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - 70% is reasonable for admin discretion (and the admin probably disregarded Kernoodle with his two edits anyways), and aside from that I would've voted delete myself. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - agree that 70% is reasonable, deletion within admin discretionary power. (Btw AfD isn't a vote) --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per above, admins are entitled to discount votes from meatpuppets.--Kchase02 T 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirt pudding

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dirt_pudding

• Undelete and comment The consensus on the discussion was for transwikification. I did this task, moving the recipe section of the article to the wikibooks cookbook. I don't feel as though there was any consensus for delete on the page, and I think a valid case was made for the noteworthiness of the dessert. Wikipedia obviously has plenty of articles on unusual deserts (e.g. Baked Alaska).
• Endorse closure, keep deleted.There is a consensus—one, I might add, that I do not agree with, but clearly a consensus—that recipes are not appropriate for Wikipedia. When you remove the recipe from this article, there's nothing left. The discussants who voted to transwiki probably should have explicitly used the word "delete," but it is very reasonable to assume that's what they meant. The article is just a recipe. When you remove the recipe from the article, what is left contains nothing to suggest any cultural importance. Dirt pudding is not comparable to Baked Alaska, because the latter is a recognized dessert found in most comprehensive cookbooks, and with literary references going back at least to 1921. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Google Books, which unlike Google web searches contains only material meeting the WP:V and which is undistorted by SEO, bloggers, and forums, reports 1210 pages on Baked Alaska and six on Dirt Pudding; however, of those six, at least two refer to actual dirt, e.g. "Yesterday I made a dirt-pudding in the garden, wherein to plant some slips of currant." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closing admin: I have closed the debate as "transwiki" and have successfully merged the content to b:Cookbook:Dirt pudding, and the page can therefore be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A5. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Consensus was not to keep. --Ezeu 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Don't see any procedural issues. Article can be recreated as a non-recipe write-up if there is enough material and history to make it notable. (And from quick Googling, that seems like a tough cookie. All I see is recipes.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: The recipe now is a speedy delete, as we already have the "article" at Wikibooks. There aren't very many recipes that are encyclopedic, as they fall into the how-to guide category that was one of the first WP:NOT's. Geogre 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Makharinsky

• Delte and comment. I'm unsure what to do here. I've started AfD discussions before, but this seems to be a review for an article which just reappeared again after having been deleted in April 2006. I'm not sure what I should do after this step. The reasons for deletion seem to be non-notablity (except for winning Graduate of the Year), vanity, autobiography. Interlingua ^talk 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (again) of self-evident vanispamcruftisement. It is almost impossible not to conclude that the creator, Dezhnev (talk · contribs), is Makharinsky himself, and it's very likely that the editor who repeatedly adds Makharinsky and his website to other articles, User:GOY2006, is also Makharinsky. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused. What exactly are we discussing here? The article is already protected against recreation after being deleted yesterday as a repost. Metros232 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse properly closed AfD. Keep deleted. --Ezeu 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Armando Lloréns-Sar

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar, the quoted result was keep, but the reviewing admin apparently failed to notice that the page was protected and blanked. The result probably should have been keep, revert to the last version before it was blanked or vandalized, and consider separately the question of whether it should be protected.

So Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The protection should have been lifted prior to closing of the AfD debate since the privacy claims were no longer maintainable. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist or have an admin that can find the content of the article reclose the AfD without prejudice. In this case I think the closing comment: "The result of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting" seems misinformed. Reading the discussion makes clear that the content was available in the history throughout the AfD, and it was that content that was being discussed, not the blanked page on top. If the closing admin knew this, he should have made that clear and made a decision based on the content. It appears that the decision was made on the basis of there being no content, which was not the case. NoSeptember 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - unless I'm missing something, this one does seem to have gone wrong. Metamagician3000 09:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I could restore it now. There seems to be a consensus to overturn the decision. (my fault in the first place) Will (message me!) 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus is probably right conclusion by the deleting admin but deleting the article this way and said it was a result of AfD is wrong. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This entry has now been recreated and redirected to Daily Kos by User:Hipocrite. I don't have issues with the action, but I have issues that the action was taken without/against consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version per Arthur Rubin. The redirect isn't sufficient, imo, because that page doesn't contain the information from the blanked page (and shouldn't). If/when the page is recreated it will probably need to be protected from User:Armandoatdailykos, but that's another issue to take up later. Dori 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  DRV is not the place to pick the version of the article. I think people mean to say, undelete the history, let people edit the page, and start a discussion on the talk page to decide what the article should look like, or if it should be a redirect. NoSeptember 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  I guess that's shorthand for "Unprotect so that it can be reverted to the last unblanked version". Reverting is not an admin job, unprotecting is. ~ trialsanderrors 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh? Reverting is not an admin's job? Perhaps I am misreading your post here... KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  I parsed that as, "any editor can do the reverting, once the article is unprotected, but it takes an admin to unprotect it. Reverting isn't an admin's job specfically." It's not a comment on what admins can and cannot do. · rodii · 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks, rodii. ~ trialsanderrors 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mooted by recreation in appropriate version without GFDL violations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • False The minimum required is to undelete the history of this article, so that comments can be properly merged into "Daily Kos" when it is agreed as to what is proper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead

Overturn And Keep:As I stated in the dicussion for propsed deletion against the NN statement a(fter I figured out how to get there)I showed an excerpt of a NYT article that stated the band.It said: I have changed the page because look I just joined and still finding out what happens.For the non notable band issue I have an excerpt for the New York Times which states the band.(NYT Article):

Like MTV, it is starting to create stars that glow brightly within its own universe. The band Hollywood Undead, which did not exist three months ago, has achieved celebrity thanks to MySpace. "We were just a bunch of loser kids who sat around our friend's house all day, and we started making music and recording it on computer," one of its vocalists, Jeff Phillips, said.

About two months ago the group posted a page on MySpace decorated with pictures of all seven members disguised in hockey masks and other forms of concealment. They also included a few original songs, a fusion of heavy metal and hip-hop. "In a matter of weeks it got huge, and it kept on getting bigger and bigger," said Mr. Phillips, whose left earlobe was splayed open enough to accommodate a hollow ring the size of a wedding band.

"It's been maybe nine weeks, and we've had over a million plays. We have 60,000 people who listen to it every day. It's crazy. If you look at our page, it's like we're a huge band that's toured a hundred times."

Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract."

This can be found on their myspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DogPHman (talk • contribs) ."

I didn't know half of the things people were stating as I am a new user.I KNOW THAT DOESN"T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO IGNORENCE BUT PLEASE ONE MISTAKE FORGIVE ME.Please recreate the article as I didn't mean to vandalize or create any problems.Thank you for your time.

• Relist:Had proven wrong the NN charge against the band NYT Article on Myspace BlogDogPHman 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• The correct link for the blog entry above is [118]. This is an article in the New York Times about Myspace generally which briefly mentions the band, not an article about the band itself. This is the fifth time an article has been created for this band, and it's been through AfD, with the consensus of "delete". There was considerable discussion of whether the band was notable because of its presence on Myspace, and the conclusion was that it wasn't. That conclusion might be worth re-examining, but we went through a full AfD back in April. And the band still hasn't actually issued an album, although they keep talking about doing so. I suggest leaving them deleted until they meet some WP:BAND criteria. Maybe someday they'll be on the cover of Rolling Stone without ever having issued their music on a physical record medium. But they're not there yet. --John Nagle 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This version in my opinion goes much further in adressing concerns of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall article quality, and it was deemed unfit for Wikipedia by an AfD consensus; I have no reason to suspect anything went wrong during the AfD, nor do I feel that this NYT article presents any claim of notability not formerly addressed in the AfD. In essence, Wikipedia exists to document bands and individuals that have already acheived fame, not to help bands acheive fame (as is MySpace's purpose). Unless some new evidence can be presented, I see no reason to restore. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I agree with AmiDaniel's analysis. Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. I think the five previous AfDs pretty clearly prove consensus on this issue. Deleuze 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hollywood Undead, Mr. Phillips said, is negotiating with major labels for a recording contract." - in other words, they have zero records released. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, should be speedy deleted on sight. Extreme keep deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: At least this band makes its money online, so it makes sense that they'd believe that Wikipedia is a good place to increase visibility, but it isn't. Some MySpace bands are going to be huge, some became huge, but we should be behind the curve and inherent conservative and non-speculative, if we're a reference work at all. WP:MUSIC therefore requires records, record deals, and distribution (getting the platters in the Wal*Mart). When that happens, it will be time for the backward-reporting Wikipedia article. Geogre 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

16 June 2006

Sadullah Khan

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadullah Khan

The AfD on this biography received very few votes. In total, exactly two "delete" votes from registered editors (and one from an anonymous IP). I came across the AfD and article five days later than the other voters, and realized that although the article was badly written, it addressed a distinctly notable person who very easily passes both the "author test" and the "professor test". I voted "strong keep", and also cleaned up the article at least enough to more clearly indicate the notability of Mr. Khan. A version that I have further touched up (slightly) is temporarily at: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sk

In my comment, I specifically requested that the closing admin at least extend the vote, if not simply close it as "no consensus". Given that the registered editors at most split 2 del/1 keep, "no consensus" would be the right action even without the request. But given that there's is no evidence that the original 2 delete voters looked at the cleaned up article, a deletion just seems premature. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn or relist. LotLE×talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Shane should have an article because he is a noteable and respectable australian journalist60.225.117.215 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• strong overturn Shane Cubis should be allowed to have an article because he is a highly noteable and very well respected Australian journalist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.117.215 (talk • contribs)

Note: Even though I believe this should be overturned, it appears this anon editor made an error and is discussing a different article. LotLE×talk

• Relist, given how few editors commented and how much work was done on the article during the AFD. -- Vary | Talk 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - closure was within discretion, and I'm not critical of it, but with so few votes and now a cogent challenge to the outcome, I think a further AfD with opportunity for a better debate is the safe way to go. Metamagician3000 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLE and MM3K ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Reasonable notability has been established; articles deserves another chance. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - I have no idea about the notability but I do feel the article deletion debate should have been resulted in "no consensus" --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, I nominated it. It was an oversight on my part not actually including a Delete. That would have made three registered users... and considering the wording of my nom, the admin may have just counted it as a delete vote anyway. If the person who asked for review has rewritten the article, then let him recreate it. I do not have a problem with him doing that, but I don't see a reason to overturn this AFD because IMO, the admin made the right decision at the time. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LotLe and MM3K. The article was significantly improved during the AfD to the extent the early votes can be discarded as out-of-date. Even without this, I would have either relisted or closed as no-consensus. Thryduulf 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

File:944 h.jpg

This image has suddenly stopped appearing in its article, and seems to have been deleted. I was never notified of a pending deletion, and I cant't find a record of the process to find out why it was deleted. There shouldn't be copyright issues, because Indiana University allows the photo to be used for informational purposes as long as it bears the accompanying legend "Courtesy of Indiana University." The image description page contained a link to the original photo source and there was a note on the copyright status. What was the problem? Does the photo have to be free of all restrictions, including "Courtesy of..." tags? Did I format the image tags incorrectly? Was the problem the photo's generic name? I would like to upload a new copy of the photo, but I will refrain from doing so until I know why the image was deleted and whether the photo can be re-uploaded in a manner that complies with Wikipedia policy. --Jpbrenna 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted from Commons, and en.wikipedia.org deletion review does not have jursidiction there, see their deletion policy at Deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor can images be restored once deleted. You may want to dig through Google's cache and see if you can find it again, then save it on your computer and discuss restoring the image on Commons. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They actually can now Will (message me!) 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Didn't Brion make it possible? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image undeletion is supposedly working now, but I don't know how stable it is at the moment. If it's wiki-wide then a commons admin could restore that image, if requested on commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woa! Well, would you look at that! I'm impressed, my kudos to Brion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment* As far as I can see it was deleted due to unknown license status. I'd reccommend to either take your plea over to the Wikipedia Commons (if image undeletion really works) or just look for it again on the net, reupload it and make sure it has the correct license tags. CharonX/talk 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• The image deletion is recent enough to make undeletion possible. I think the best action would be to contact User:Essjay (who deleted it), and make you case directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stone Trek

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stone_Trek
• Overturn and Keep As another editor recently said, AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight, and in this case, I feel the arguments were ignored. This article is a textbook case of meeting WP:WEB, as it only needs to meet one of these terms - for condition #1, SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [119], it was featured on G4TechTV [120], and even William Shatner plugs it on his website. Condition #2 hasn't been met, as far as I can tell, but #3 has been as well, since the series is hosted at Newgrounds.com as well as StarLand.com, who apparently commercially sponsored the series as well. Any of these links easily satisfies the conditions laid out at WP:WEB.

And finally, using the ever-popular Google test (just for those who want to judge notability), we get over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series. The page should be restored. MikeWazowski 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Fails to meet WP:WEB, contrary to MikeWazowski's claims. The G4 mention can hardly be described as anything but trivial and passing, and the same is true for Shatner's site. Further, newgrounds distribution is a terrible standard for notability - it allows anyone to put up whatever they want. Do you propose that every single flash movie on there should have a page here? The only claim to notability is the SciFi.com mention, but then again SciFi.com isn't very notable itself. I don't think it meets the requirements. Deleuze 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you really asserting that the website for the Sci-fi Channel isn't notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you really asserting it is the subject of multiple non-trivial works that are indepedent of the work itself? Even if you assert that a small bit on scifi.com is non-trivial (and you would be wrong), that's it... the sum total of "note". The G4 mention is one line and a link mixed in with other trek fandom links. As I said further down, hosting on things like newgrounds is meaningless, since they are almost totally indiscriminate. This really does not pass WP:WEB. The AFD was correctly run, and there is no reason to justify overturning it, and no justification for you trying to re-fight it here. - Motor (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am saying they do. Multiple is multiple, even if you want to spin it as one line as part of a subject is not enough, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Multiple non-trivial works is the wording jeff. It's worded that way for a reason. - Motor (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the decision was correct. The arguments made for keep were not substantial and, for the most part, inaccurate. WP:WEB discounts the kind of off-hand trivial linking that Stone Trek claims to enjoy. Newgrounds is, for the most part, indiscriminate, and its hosting there means little. Also, notablity is generally measured from outside the area of the item under discussion (outside ST/SF fandom in this case). Lots of "keep" arguments revolved around people liking it... fair enough, but not a reason for a "keep". - Motor (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep, it meets WP:WEB, and should ahve been kept on that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep - clearly meets WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in a new AFD (preferably) or Overturn and keep (per User:MikeWazowski's comments above). There were two aspects of this AFD that were highly questionable - (1) it was one of a mass series of nominations of Star Trek fan productions and there was a lot of emotion involved in the discussion rather than actual consideration of the positions and (2) there was some obvious sock puppetry. Further, MikeWazowski has provided additional media mentions, providing further evidence of meeting WP:WEB that was not presented for consideration in the AFD. For those reasons, I believe it really ought to have its own AFD where it can be considered outside of the context of that emotionally charged night of Star Trek AFDs. BigDT 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Closer's comment (wasn't notified of this discussion, by the way) - I saw your basic rough consensus for deletion, and no particularly overwhelming arguments on the keep side. It started off with the nominator of this discussion above accusing the AfD's nominator of bad faith because, er, he started a lot of other AfDs on similar subjects (I call that consistency, myself, but, much like solvents, WP:POINT accusations are only fun when you abuse them), and didn't get much better from there.
• The external links provided that supposedly meet WP:WEB did not appear to sway the editors that commented after they were provided, and as I've already made the close and don't need to be neutral any more, I strongly agree that they didn't confer notability. I agree that Site of the Week is "about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award" (Hahnchen) - otherwise, 52 websites a year presumably suddenly merit Wikipedia articles on the basis of an obscure satellite channel's website feature. On G4TV.com, Stone Trek is only mentioned in a space-filling list, and it's second from the bottom. Passing mentions are not a good basis for an encyclopaedia article. Ditto the so-called plug by the All-Bran Man, which in reality is another list of weblinks, although this time it's an impressive third from the bottom.
• As for the 'independent distribution' bit, there's no way all Newgrounds cartoons should get an article. Note that the footnote of WP:WEB says "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I doubt Starland.com is much more discerning, I very much doubt it qualifies as "well known" (that's "well known" to ordinary people, not "well known among Star Trek and Flash cartoon fans"). Oh, and I did look at the contribution histories and don't believe the consensus depended on 'votes' from very new users. I stand by my closing, obviously. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - within discretion. Metamagician3000 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, appears valid per policy and per process. Keep arguments appear to be mostly arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Valid close. Please see Angus McLellan's comments on the AFD to see why. - Hahnchen 11:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Valid closure by deleting admin, no reason to overturn. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Hahnchen. — Mike • 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the mention on scifi.com does not meet WP:WEB. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - Nothing looks unusual or improper in AfD. ` LotLE×talk 04:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A spin-off of a spin-off cannot borrow the notability of the original: the cartoon version of "Joanie Loves Chachi" can't get "Happy Days"'s numbers. WP:WEB is not satisfied. Geogre 12:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lightsaber combat

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsabercombat
• Overturn and delete. AfD isn't a vote — it's supposedly the arguments made that carry the most weight. This article is a textbook example of WP:NOR — really, no argument (at least in my opinion) can be made that it isn't a huge, entire, massive batch of original research. And a sampling of the "persuasive" keep arguments:
  • "the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for."
  • "it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason,"
  • "I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'."
  • "since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it"
  • "the various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters"
  • "so what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae?"
  • "It's interesting!"
  • "Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places."
  • "This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere."
  • "If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh"
  • "This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan" — Mike • 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Agree with Mike. Perfect for some star wars wiki, but not here. Deleuze 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete per nom. --Mmx1 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Puke-enducing. The only references seem to be external links that, as far as I can tell, are written by fans and posted on free web services, making it original research. Not original to Wikipedia, perhaps, but OR nevertheless. -R. fiend 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, some of those refs suck--but there is a Star Wars Insider ref and actual books Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary by David Reynolds (ISBN 0789485885), which is part of a series. There are also references to various games, which probably have manuals and strategy guides--if not the games themselves--that could be used to cite this along with novels (that are also referenced already). Uncited? mostly. Original research? lots of it. Unverifiable? Some, but not totally. I think the topic could be handled better by Wookieepedia, but neither side has a convincing argument. As there are reputable sources and people willing to work on the article, why not give them say 2 weeks and re-evaluate it then? Kotepho 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Also, a quick glance showed that the article cites the RotS novelisation and KOTOR II in at least one place. Also, R. fiend seems to misunderstand what OR means. All research is original to somewhere. If the information was just made up on some site, that's called a hoax, not OR. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - there was an obvious consensus to keep. MaxSem 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless the article is revised so that the various descriptions are given specific inline references to the specific published sources—the "novelizations as well as Expanded Universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and 'Visual Dictionaries.'"—on which they are said to be based. I don't have a problem with people having different interests than mine, but I have a big problem with articles that don't even try to meet the minimum standards of scholarship expressed in WP:V, which is said to be "non-negotiable" and "official policy." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I don't see a reason to delete, but I don't see a clear reason to keep, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - while the subject is much more information than even I'm interested in, according to the admin who closed the debate, the "keep" votes clearly outnumbered the "delete"s... As to RFiend's claim above that all the links were to fansites, he needs to either look again or actually read them - this link in particular (listed #2 on the page) is from an article in Lucasfilm's own Star Wars Insider magazine, with material such as this endorsed and authorized by Lucasfilm. Most of the other material in the Wikipedia article is taken (although not referenced properly) from various Star Wars novels and games, and thus, not original research. It may not be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article, but they didn't come up with the majority of this on their own. MikeWazowski 16:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it's not a pure headcount kind of a situation at AfD. It's the quality of the arguments — and no clear argument was made with regards to why that thing isn't a huge batch of fan OR. — Mike • 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Deletion does not substitute for cleanup. I was the first keep, and I did not base it on any kind of "fancruft." I based it simply upon the google test results[121] which were good. It seems a little upsurd that the format of an article is enough to ganer deletion. Mike is also ignoring some of the legit editors who voted keep, comments inculded, "This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion"[122], "Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether."[123], "More editing and cleanup can help."[124], "There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article"[125]. Also it should be noted that the nominator was going on a crusade of "fancruft," and had strange rationale, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft."[126].
  Also, all of the reasons for "keeping" that Mike listed were from anon and new users, whom usually get their opinions disregarded. The closing nom noted that there were good arguments on both sides, prehaps it could have been closed as a no-conseus, but that is no reason to file for a deletion. Respectfully, Yanksox ^(talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Poorly referenced articles aren't the same as pure OR articles. Is there some way to give a deadline for the article to be properly sourced before it comes up for deletion again? For such a large article, it could take some time to properly cite every fact. EVula 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This is a textbook case of "no consensus", and in such cases, the article is kept by default. At least some of it is cited, as well--if the uncited parts need to be removed and the article needs to be cleaned up, so be it, but that doesn't justify deleting the entire article. jgp (T|C) 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, textbook case of headcounting and ignoring guidelines and policies with regard to original research. I think they should turn it into a wikibook and link it from the Lightsabre article... but an article on a fictional combat technique that was started from a ficitional point of view (what's next "X-Wing flight dynamics"?) and continues to be written that way. On top of that the keep votes, as noted above, were pretty awful. - Motor (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wikibooks doesn't want this, unless people actually have classes that need textbooks for lightsabre combat. Kotepho 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. Probably should have closed as "no consensus", but in that case it's kept by default. I fully agree that it needs cleaning up and better citing, but it's not just complete OR, and it's not unsalvageable. BryanG^(talk) 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close. Properly closed based on the discussion. --JJay 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close per BryanG. —Mira 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist for the same reasons I gave in the above Star Trek AFD. Take it out of the context of the emotionally charged situation surrounding its nomination. BigDT 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close followed policy.Geni 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per MikeW. Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - clear consensus. That wouldn't have mattered if the article had been hopeless, but I've had a close look at it, and it isn't. The concept is a concept in the franchise itself, not something we've made up. There may be some original research in the article but it looks like a lot of it is not original research in our sense. The presence of some original research in an article that is not fundamentally hopeless may be a reason for pruning and editing, but not for deletion. Metamagician3000 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per consensus in AfD --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No Original Research. --Improv 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - improve to remove the original research, don't delete the whole thing. —Mira 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd much prefer to move as much Star Wars material as possible out to Wookiepedia, which exists for exactly that purpose. However, in this particular case, we had to go through a major AfD battle to get lightsaber combat down to one article. At one point, we had one article for each "form" of combat. That was just too much. We had more info on lightsaber combat than on fencing. At least now we're down to one article. I can live with that. I'd suggest, though, that Star Wars articles in Wikipedia be confined to material from the movies. The vast amount of collateral marketing material mostly isn't notable. --John Nagle 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The existence of Wookieeeeepedia should have no bearing on our decisions one way or another. If someone created a Physicspedia, we wouldn't move physics articles there because of it -- we would only move articles that we would have deleted anyway. I agree, of course, that much Star Wars content has limited notability.--Eloquence* 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep While not given footnotes, the article is fairly well researched; follow the links before you say "NOR! NOR!". Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Captainktainer * Talk 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The article isn't perfect, but it's far from being delete worthy IMHO. Barnas 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Knox (animator)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)

Knox (animator) was a page about a popular internet animator, he currently has over ten million unique hits on his website, www.knoxskorner.com. His next full feature movie, Villain, is being helped by David Rand, who worked on The Matrix, and Marc Spess, professional clay modeler. There are Wikipedia pages about other flash animator far less popular and professional thank Knox. Why was his page deleted? Now, it is impossible to recreate the page as it has been completely locked, and there are over ten million people who would like the page restored. There are other flash animators who have pages on Wikipedia, and it seems hypocritical that Wikipedia are not allowing Knox to have a page.

• Comment Salting admin's edit summary is "deletedpage template, as per AFD". Someone should link in that AFD. GRBerry 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • done. See also the page that used to be at Robert "Knox" Benfer which was speedy-deleted as a recreation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Benfer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Rossami (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Deletion was in process, thoroughly discussed. How many times do we have to go over the Knox thing? It just keeps coming back, like a bad lunch. By the way, I think the claim that ten million people want the page restored is, shall we say, exaggerated. · rodii · 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid afd (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)), notability still not establshed. Trying to claim that an article should exist because others do is never a valid argument. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Was the AfD listed at the (animator) article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, see the link above. It's also a repost of the VfD I also listed above (after you posted this). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion, unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh no, not again. Keep deleted, as usual. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• JzG stole my comment. "There are over ten million people who would like the page restored" - wow, I used to get depressed that 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 a day, but thanks to Intuhnets Cartoonist #21579 and his fans I now have some perspective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• As per JzG exactly - Hahnchen 12:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - the "10 million people" thing is ludicrous, and the numbers don't add up. His movie's IMDB has had only 239 people vote on it - surprisingly, 205 voted it a "10", which smacks of some severe ballotstuffing in my book. His website has "barely" cracked the top 100,000 sites listed by Alexa, but has dropped off in the last 3 months. If anything, that "10 million" number is total visitors, counting all the duplicates from people going to his site every day. The telling statistic on that page is that for every one million people using the web, only five of those visit his site, and that number has been dropping as well. MikeWazowski 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak

This page was recently on the AfD page and Joyous! closed the AfD as no consensus even though the tally was 10 delete to 7 keep. If anything this page is going to be the current article length for at least a year or more until more information is released on it. As is there is only one actor on the IMDB page and only one line of description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whispering (talk • contribs) 20:17, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Consensus. 10-7 is not a consensus by any definition of the word. -- SCZenz 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, 10-7 on a straight vote count is the definition of "no consensus." I'm half inclined to say overturn and change to straight keep since it was clear that this easily reached the standard for future movies/events, but I won't be that catty. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• 10-7 is clearly "no consensus", not keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (no consensus). Personally, I would have argued to delete the page if I'd seen the AFD in time. I didn't and Joyous was perfectly correct in her closure. Note that a "no consensus" decision does not stop you from renominating it for deletion if new evidence presents itself or if the article remains unimproved for a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. No rules were broken here. Denni ☯ 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within legitimate admin discretion. Metamagician3000 06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Enrdorse closure per Metamagician3000. --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board was deleted out of process and page protected by two admins, Nandesuka and Cyde. The former admits to ignoring all rules in deleting the page [127] while the latter provokes a Wikipedia:Wheel_war by undoing the actions of another administrator, Haukurth, that had the project restored because the original deletion was out of process. Cyde's justification of his actions is that the project is "crap". However, many editors and administrators pointed out that the project did not meet any of the CSD criteria. See the long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. A MfD was opened for the project, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board, but it was closed only 4 hours after it started when the normal procedure is 8 days. The result was declared a "speedy delete" by admin JDoorjam who voted for Deletion in the less than 4 hour debate. Objections were raised in the MfD to having the project deleted. As the founder of the Wikipedia:Conservative notice board, I would have liked to comment in the debate as well but I was away during that short period of time. Regardless of the MfD, admin Cyde deleted the project while the debate was still active at 16:57, June 15, 2006 (UTC) [128], surprising admin JDoorjam, who closed the debate at 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

Proposal: Restore the project page because of its out of process deletion. --Facto 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: The Wikipedia:Conservative notice board was modelled after the Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board. Project description: This is the LGBT/conservative notice board, for Wikipedians interested in articles related to LGBT/conservative topics. It should be noted that this is intended to be a noticeboard for all Wikipedians interested in these issues, not a noticeboard solely for the use of LGBT/conservative Wikipedians. --Facto 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't care if it stays or goes, I was solicited to join up with it, but it wasn't a speedy candidate, so overturn and list at MfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - This page is a perfect example of a page that is used as a tool for ballot stuffing and political organising. It is not the only page that should go for these reasons, but it should be gone, and is presently gone for good reason. Pages like this that are destructive enough to the community need to be buried, and VfD is not the place to discuss it. --Improv 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; no good reason for keeping it, would be deleted by MfD anyway. Also a blatant POV noticeboard; there's no such thing as a exclusively conservative issue. A politics noticeboard would be better, as proposed on ANI. Johnleemk | Talk 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and seal with concrete. Such boards compromise NPOV fundamental principle of wikipedia and carry a big potential risk for misuse. -- Drini 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - vote-stuffing "noticeboards" harm the project and should be removed, with or without discussion. It is clear that the board was nothing more than an organized attempt at meatpuppetry. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This sort of thing has no place on wikipedia. --pgk^(talk) 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:IAR isn't necessary; this is enforcement of WP:NPOV, very clearly. -- SCZenz 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and let the community have a debate about it. NPOV doesn't apply outside article space. moink 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We have no need for a "WikiProject POV Pushing". --Carnildo 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Almost all my points were first raised at the administrative noticeboard, I'm summarizing what seems to me the most important parts of that discussion in order to explain my conclusion. This page had the same structure as Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. (This comparison board is now under MfD.) That would be reason to let the MFD run. However, the page creator appears to have violated WP:SPAM. To my eyes this is enough to endorse speedy deletion solely because of WP:SPAM violation despite parallel structure. The salting violates Wikipedia:Protection_policy#A_permanent_or_semi-permanent_protection_is_used_for:. (There is a counter argument citing WP:SALT that is easily overcome by reading the entire sentence cited.) By the time deletion review finishes, we'll have had an effective temporary protection. I agree that this protection does not meet permanent protection standards, so overturn only protection. Other boards were mentioned in the the ANI discussion, if the MFD for LBGT results in deletion they should receive MFDs also. If the LBGT MFD results in a keep, then the title could be well used, and should be unprotected for that purpose. GRBerry 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll admit I've only been here for six months, but could you explain why telling people about a group that highlights articles of a particular interest meets the WP:SPAM policy? The only part of that article I can find that some might think applies is "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Which Facto most certainly did not do. DavidBailey 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  Telling people in general wouldn't have been a problem. A notice at the "New pages seeking contributors" section of Wikipedia:Community Portal would have been fine. So would have been putting notice up on a couple of highly watched talk pages (say, the abortion/pro-life article talk pages). The problem is the mass invitations to editors that "identify as a conservative Wikipedian" (quote from the invitations). These are people already known to have a certain point of view. Immediately, they are targetted to participate on the discussion of this community portal, ultimately to participate in the various action items. It would have been poor form and risk of a spam block for Facto, but probably not a problem for the notice board, had he gone through the 20 most recent contributors of major edits to a couple of relevant articles. GRBerry 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Should have gone through MfD normally. I don't know why people think it's better to speedy delete, annoy a bunch of people, and have it out on DRV/ANI etc. for 2 weeks when it could just go to MfD for a week. --W.marsh 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. I find it very odd that it's okay to have interest groupings about geography or sexual orientation, but not about political views. Considering that anyone can be part of any of them and monitor its activities, assuming that an interest group about political issues is automatically going to be abused seems not well thought out. And if Wikipedia policy is what is driving some admins to determine that it should be removed, at least the policies should be followed when deleting it, don't you think? DavidBailey 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD. The speedy looks to me like it was a spur-of-the-moment thing sparked by the potential political aspect of the situation, which is understandable yet probably not the best response to the situation. Having said that, I'm concerned about having boards like this for *any* type of advocacy or organizing - the LGBT board looks like it could (not saying it HAS, or that its role is intended this way) be a flashpoint for vote-stacking and other problems. If we were to have general notice boards for broad topics - such as the Politics notice board someone suggested - it might work out. Tony Fox (speak) 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy restore and reopen the MfD. DRV is not for discussing whether something belongs on WP or not, it's for discussing whether the deletion was within the bounds of policy. I'd like for someone to cite a speedy deletion criteria that justifies the early closure of the MfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think it is normally reasonable to close the xFD for a speedy deleted x. That happens all the time for AFDs. I'm not looking closely enough into the timing to know when the closure occured in the sequence of delete-restore-delete&salt. If prior to the first restore, the closure is reasonable. If after the restore, the closure may not be appropriate. GRBerry 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted or rename it and recreate it with less of a polarizing philosophy behind it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Recreated (not by me) as Wikipedia:Politics notice board. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  That was me. I suggested it at WP:AN/I and there seemed to be a generally favorable reaction so I went ahead. Still can use some polishing, but there shouldn't be any 'NPOV' issues if it covers all sides of the spectrum. --CBD 23:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I am cautiously optimistic that the politics notice board will not serve a harmful role to the encyclopedia. --Improv 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I, however, am more doubtful. Take a look at the "Articles with disputes" section: Ann Coulter, Pro-life, Homosexual agenda, Special rights, Nuclear family, Gay rights opposition. Exploding Boy 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Feel free to add some of your own. Many of these political articles have become fairly POV-biased and need exposure to a wider audience and further editing work. DavidBailey 03:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for obvious reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Which obvious reasons? The out-of-process speedy? The incomplete MfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The creator of this project, despite his claims, revealed his purpose for forming the noticeboard when he spammed over 50 editors with the following message (emphasis mine):

  Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board.

  I only regret that I exercised leniency and did not give Facto a block for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. I ignored all rules and deleted it because I honestly thought the deletion would be absolutely uncontroversial given the clear and patent POV-pushing nature of the project. I hold no rancor towards those who want to run it through the whole process, but it's clear that even most of those who wanted to see this go through MfD planned to vote "delete." So let's just skip to the part where we agree that while POV pushing happens, we shouldn't provide a home for it on the Wikipedia namespace. Nandesuka 00:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW should never be cited, certainly not in a situation like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Was obviously not a good-faith creation, but rather was spurred by the VFD page on Opposition to homosexuality. Exploding Boy 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion partisan vote-stacking effort. Deletion was quite appropriate. -M^ask 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - there shouldn't be a noticeboard for a specific POV. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE: this has been recreated by the same person as Wikipedia:Politics notice board and deleted under G4. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Wrong, Tony, I did not recreate the project. Another admin moved the page and restored it. I suggest you apologize immediately for wheel warring and undo your harmful and disruptive actions to Wikipedia. --Facto 03:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll make no apology for redeleting that trash, though had I known that it had been undeleted rather than recreated I would not have done so. Since that is a technicality and the page must remain deleted, I will not restore it. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Tony? Apologize for harmful and disruptive actions? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks for the best laugh I've had all week. Jay Maynard 11:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fine, but G4 doesn't apply to speedies directly, or we'd never be able to resurrect anything speedied since it'd be a recreation. Thus the appearance of the "met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place" bit (which got rather masticated in the refactoring of CSD a while back) - a re-speedy under pseudo-G4 is, in fact, a speedy under some other criterion. I'm not just ruleslawerying; the usual intent of G4 is to keep e.g. AfD'd material deleted, rather than arbitrarily speedied material. -Splash - tk 02:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    G4 applies to all valid deletions. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Tony, I think you may be over-reacting. You could have just as easily removed any of the postings in the politics notice board that you thought were not appropriate, made suggestions and otherwise help it evolve into something reasonable. People were acting on good faith, based on discussion. People network all the time in many ways. As long as they engage in discussion with others, networking is not a bad thing. -- Samuel Wantman 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record (again), >I< undeleted and rewrote the page following discussion at AN/I and here which seemed to be in favor of the idea. I then indicated that I had done so here, on ANI, and on the talk page of the notice board itself. As to the whole 'G4' argument... are we seriously process-lawyering over how the process applies to situations where the process is being ignored? We tossed process out the window when this was deleted... and again when most of the deletion reviewers did not respond on the basis of whether normal process was followed. We could debate whether or not 'Conservatism' and 'Politics' are "substantially identical" (e.g. 'G4'), but I'd really rather just fix this before the disruption gets any worse. Is a 'Politics notice board' really 'more biased' than a 'LGBT notice board'? So much so that it must be nuked on sight rather than improved to a more neutral presentation? --CBD 10:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Some admins are so busy deleting that I think it has been missed that a great solution has been presented that I believe will work. See Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board#New Version. Basically, create the Political notice board, then create sub-pages related to specific areas of interest within politics- IE- minimum wage, abortion, etc. This way, they are not liberal or conservative, and are both neutral while allowing those who are interested in a specific political topic to maintain a board on that specific topic. DavidBailey 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore as per DavidBailey --Strothra 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD per Tony Fox. Why, exactly, was this a candidate for speedy deletion the first time? Jay Maynard 02:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore All these cabals um, groups joined together by common interests ought be deleted, but deleting some but not others, seemingly based upon the sociopolitical perspectives of the deleting admins rather than according to a consistent application of policy, would be the very worst outcome. I'll change my stance if and when equally partisan - and, frankly, more controversial and less mainstream - projects appear to be on their way to deletion.Timothy Usher 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh n03s! Teh C4BALZ! --mboverload@ 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Hope that works for you.Timothy Usher 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Restore and discuss. Because this has been moved to a more neutral setting, it is no less worthy of respect than Wikipedia:Schoolwatch. While I disagree with ballot stuffing, I have no issue with a place where people of common interests can gather. Denni ☯ 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and send to MfD - where I would be inclined to vote "delete", but not until I've had a chance to have a good look at it and think about the debate. Metamagician3000 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore - invalid speedy delete candidate, needs community input. Davodd 05:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted BUT -- Hipocrite made a very good suggestion during the MfD that got utterly lost in the noise. I suggested burning the thing and starting anew; He said, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism seems like a good place to do so. Allow me to suggest that articles like Edmund Burke, Conservatism and Social Darwinism would be GOOD articles to focus on. This makes sense to me -- and is far more in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps this would be a good idea, but for the circumstances after the spamming, where we have a posse of political conservatives gathered by the spammer, all looking for a suitable page to use for networking. This has to be stamped out first, then in a few months, if there is a group of historians or politican scientists on Wikipedia who want to form such a wikiproject, let them go ahead. --Tony Sidaway 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not encourage elitism on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's slogan is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Editors should not have to be historians or "politican scientists" [sic] to form a WikiProject about conservatism. I would also like to know how such a group could exist without the use of invitations. And why would we need to wait months to start a WikiProject? I created the project in one day and it was deleted out of process in less than half a day. --Facto 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (repeated from above) Some admins are so busy deleting that I think it has been missed that a great solution has been presented that I believe will work. See Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board#New Version. Basically, create the Political notice board, then create sub-pages related to specific areas of interest within politics- IE- minimum wage, abortion, etc. This way, they are not liberal or conservative, and are both neutral while allowing those who are interested in a specific political topic to maintain a board on that specific topic. DavidBailey 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore for out-of-process deletions. Without ever having seen it, it seems to me more likely than not that it has no place on Wikipedia, but it certainly merits a full *fD debate. Sandstein 06:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted And repeat my suggestion that if people are interested in conservative topics, they link to Edmund Burke, not to Ann Coulter. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly object to these out of process speedy deletions. They cause far more harm to Wikipedia than having a 'bad' page hang around for a few days. It should have been left to go through the MFD process, so restore and send to MFD. Petros471 09:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Per Metamagician, Petros471, W.Marsh, et al, restore and send to MfD as these speedy deletions are divisive. Technically a case could be made that it qualifies under some CSD or another but that case hasn't been made here yet to my satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per DavidBailey. Also, performing an out-of-process speedy deletion should be grounds for immediate desysopping--it's one of the most gratuitious abuses of admin powers possible. jgp (T|C) 12:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This page has no connection, however remote, with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free social networking site. Sysop actions were reasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Do not endorse the deletion, however, as it was clearly intended as a vote-stacking device, keep deleted BigDT 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a foothold for POV-pushing and factionalism that we don't need, and Nandesuka was right to delete it. JDoorjam Talk 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - And I'm kind of sad to see so many people valuing process over fundamental policies like "Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia". Process changes over time, the goal does not. This page was a transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism and deserved its fate. --Cyde↔Weys 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem I'm having with this, Cyde, is that other noticeboards, including the one upon which this was based, are also "transparent POV-pushing and vote-stacking mechanism[s]". As Tom harrison said on the noticeboard, we tend to see this more clearly when we disagree with the message presented. Others may take issue with process, about which I've no opinion. My questions are about purpose. It's hard to imagine a more efficient way to manipulate Wikipedia content across a very large number of pages than by allowing some partisan factions to thrive while others are, by whatever process, deleted. I hate to say it, but this is how this looks to me. Applying clear and consistent standards would remove the appearance of partiality.Timothy Usher 22:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Hello, can we just close this now? It's embarrassing to see this bad faith appeal against the deletion of a blatantly bad faith attemot to enlist Wikipedia for a partisan cause drag on, and more and more editors being hauled into it honestly believing, in that face of incontrovertible evidence of malice, that the proponent intended something other than what he actually did: to gather together a bunch of people he personally had identified as politically biased with the intent of influencing Wikipedia. Let's just delete this and salt the earth. Too many of us have bee misled and lied to. Failing that, let's go to Jimbo and ask for guidance. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whose appeal you considered bad faith, but mine is certainly not. I wholly concur with the your sentiment regarding this particular noticeboard, but I'd suggest we compile a list of all allegedly similar noticeboards, Guilds and Alliances to be considered as a group.Timothy Usher 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, go to policy and try to establish a policy outlawing them all. But here we have a palpable, incontrovertible example, not some wild handwaving accusations, of one page created and populated out of bad faith. Let's deal with this and move on, knowing that the principle is a good one, to wipe out the others. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. There has been at least one admin who claimed to justify a userbox deletion on the ground of consistency; if that's his goal, then I would expect those other noticeboards to receive the same treatment as this one at his hands. Jay Maynard 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If you know the admin. ask him (if he didn't vote to delete this one) why he didn't vote to delete this one. Wikipedia is not consistent--that's a given. We don't refrain from doing the right thing just because somebody else didn't do the right thing. There lies the road to partisanship. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not naming him because the specific admin is not relevant; I'll let him step forward if he wishes (preferably with a speedy delete of the other pages, whatever they may be). Jay Maynard 23:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well you make an accusation against one admin and choose to generalise that to all admins by implication. You refuse to name that admin, but did you, at the time, bring the problem to his attention? If none of these is true I would happily suggest that your accusation is worthless and that, lacking the good faith to identify the case, you yourself are engaged in a bad faith action, smearing all administrators by the reported action, which you refuse to substantiate, of a single administrator. I suggest that you withdraw your accusation, having refused outright to support it. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Okkay, fine. User:Metamagician3000, care to comment, since you're the one who cited consistency as a desirable thing? (If you look, you'll see that he agreed with my proposed resolution of this DRV.) Now, Tony, would YOU care to retract YOUR accusation of bad faith? I tried to avoid dragging that other admin into this, but since you insisted... Jay Maynard 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I do think that pages such as this belong at MfD, and that's how I voted above, and how I would probably vote in similar cases. But I also realise this one was deleted in good faith by a respected admin after due consideration, and on grounds that I have some sympathy for. End of story, really. Metamagician3000 02:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony, of couse, being that this would likely be close to gone at this point had the MfD been allowed to run its course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The spam message of its creator pretty much let the cat out of the bag as to the reason for its creation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and permit the full discussion at MfD. It's impossible to rationally discuss this w/o seeing it.--Kchase02 T 03:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Seems detrimental to the interests of a NPOV Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Recommend larting for overturn voters. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted with fire and extra brimstone. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, the danger of vote stacking, coordinating edit wars and such, even unintentionally, is too great. I'm not too crazy about some of the projects/noticeboards used as comparisons, either. -- Kjkolb 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted... can't endorse this deletion enough. While the nominator notes that this is very similar to the LGBT project, it's telling that there is no anti-LGBT project. If we vote Keep on this project, there will undoubtedly be a Liberal project created in retaliation, and it can only go south after that. --kizzle 03:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Over at WP:AFD, they're holding slow, reasoned debates over articles much less worthy than this one. This page is far too controversial for the speedy procedure. Admins should confine themselves to using them only in uncontroversial situations. Vadder 03:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Why are we voting? Instead of having a discussion? In particular, why are we voting in the only wikipedia venue that only requires 50%+1 to delete something? Restore, relist, talk. - brenneman ^{L} 04:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I do see a lot of discussion about. --Cyde↔Weys 04:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: vote stacking/edit war vehicle; record of spam violations. This is appropriate for usenet, not an encyclopedia. Fireplace 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted:vote stacking and spam violations. Come on guys, you know better than that. Thetruthbelow 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Drini, Fireplace, and discussion preceeding original deletion on AN/I[129] Disruptive, vote-stacking, created for a specific agenda, does nothing to improve and much to inflict harm upon the Encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Restore per Facto. Either delete all or allow all pages devoted to specific interests, whether they be conservative or gay/lesbian or, as I just discovered, Iranian. --Mantanmoreland 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Atromitos

Was speedily deleted, but after reviewing the history I cannot find the reason why. Tone seems to be inactive, so I'm bringing it here. Conscious 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Odd. User:MetroStar dumped a whole bunch of incorrect tags on it ({{copyright}}{{spam}}{{advertisement}}{{copyright}}{{delete}}!) without an edit summary in sight. Tone then deleted, probably in one of the occasional lapses of checking histories etc. I can find no evidence of copyright violation, and the circumstances are dubious to say the least, so I've restored and reverted. -Splash - tk 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, upon review, some large segments of Special:ContributionsMetroStar should not be trusted. -Splash - tk 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Close discussion, now undeleted by Splash. Sandstein 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Walk To Emmaus

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk To Emmaus
• Relist Only four editors commented on the article (3/1 for deletion) and there was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability. If the consensus is to endorse deletion I would appreciate a copy for my userspace, but idealy I think further discussion on AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• That is plenty to delete an article such as this, and there is no quorum for AfD. It was about some random "spiritual renewal program" that, at most, needed some mention in the article of the organisation that runs it for its 3 days [130], not the event of Biblical importance. Endorse deletion. -Splash - tk 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The organiization that runs it for it its three days Which one did you mean [131] [132] [133][134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] and that's just the communities in Texas that have their own web domains. What I would really like is for someone to explain to me more than just "nn delete". 10,000's of people have been on these reteats I think that makes them notable. Why do others think they are not? Eluchil404 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse it's enough - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• "There was no discussion of the arguments presented for notability"? There were no arguments presented for notability to discuss. None in the article, none in the AfD (Google searches and resulting hits are not a claim to notability, though Google can turn up reliable third-party sources, which can be), and none here so far. Endorse deletion at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 3 deletes, one redirect/cleanup. No serious arguments made either way. Deletion is acceptable, relisting for more input would have been acceptable, and anyone, including the nominator here, can do the redirect if they believe it appropriate. GRBerry 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - although this could usefully be recreated as a redirect to Emmaus--Aoratos 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Actually no, it should be redirected to Cursillo if anything, as it is the Methodist version of the program created because they didn't want to pay licensing fees to use the Cursillo name, among other things. It actually isn't a random religious thing, but as an offshoot of the Cursillo movement, it belongs in that article, or not at all. It is really not notable otherwise. It has nothing to do with actually "walking" or the town of Emmaus, so the above suggestion is illogical.pschemp | talk 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't illogical. I've no knowledge of the religious movement (it doesn't seem that notable - and others use the same name), however the phrase the 'walk to Emmaus' is notable as a common title for the pericope in Luke's narrative of the Resurrection. That's far more notable. Someone typing in 'walk to Emmaus' is much more likely to be looking for the material currently in the article Emmaus (or Resurrection appearances of Jesus) than this obscure group - so it should redirect there.--Aoratos 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Samuel Blanning and GRBerry for trying to explain. I'll try to track down some sources and create a better article. Any hints about what factors should go to notability: total participants, news coverage, web presence? Eluchil404 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard explanation for notability is Wikipedia:Notability. There are also eight specific topic guidelines and a number of essays or proposed guidelines linked in the navigation box on the right. The most relevant is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), but that is only a proposal in the process of forming consensus. I personally use a two part test - is there an explanation of why the topic is significant (a claim to notability) and is that claim verified in independent reliable sources? For independence, simple reprinting of press releases doesn't count, and neither do local program site websites. The first part of the test is enough to avoid speedy deletion, the second part is enough reason for me to keep in an AFD. GRBerry 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per GRBerry - the closing admin closed the AfD fairly. Kimchi.sg 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, handled justly. PJM 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks again to GRBerry for pointing me to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) which I had missed. Can this be closed per WP:SNOW? We don't need to hold a discussion of where it should redirect of DRV. Eluchil404 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus to delete, with 75% in favour. Seems like a fairly-dealt AFD. Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. No obvious reason to question sysop's judgement call. Nothing has changed significantly since the article was deleted that suggests that relisting would now give a different result. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Per request, I've userfied the deleted content of this article to User:Eluchil404/Walk To Emmaus. If it should be decided, now or later, that the article should be restored, then the history of this page should be moved back into its original place. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - well within discretion. Metamagician3000 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

14 June 2006

Lost: The Journey

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey
• Overturn and delete. The final tally was six deletes, one transwiki, one merge/delete, and one keep. However, closing admin Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to act on his own initiative to countermand the consensus, stating instead there was no consensus because he felt that the one "keep" vote's reasoning was strong enough. I frankly don't follow his logic or understand what he found so notable about the one keep vote, but I think he's enforcing his own opinion over the decided-upon community consensus with this article, and thus appeal his decision here (as he invited people to do when closing the decision). — Mike • 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A review of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus does not appear to yield any means by which seven out of nine votes — votes that were very clearly not made in bad faith — can be entirely discarded by the closing admin. — Mike • 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that numerical majorities are final. The delete voters put limited effort into the discussion. One person puts some effort into a vote and someone complains that an article wasn't deleted by vote. Ansell 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• I welcome review of this one, because it was dicey for me when I made the call. I acknowledge that numerically, the margin was wide. I don't think any of the comments (NOT votes) were made in bad faith at all, and didn't diacount the sentiments, but I was quite convinced by the argument made by ArgentiumOutlaw and after all, this is a judgement call, not a nose count. Naturally I think I got to the right outcome and would say Keep kept. But I welcome input from my peers, and thank you in advance for it. (BTW I'm excited, because this is my first DRV!) ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean this respectfully, but when reviewing the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators document, I did not see anything within the document, barring bad faith situations, that allows an administrator to ignore the principle of rough consensus when making a decision closing a document. There is the paragraph that begins, "Some opinions can override all others," but the examples cited (copyvio, userfy, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV) do not seem to apply to the votes comments cast. — Mike • 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have some learnings from this I'll be posting later as well as more responses but I'll let some of those sit. I do have one thing I want to point out which you'll just have to take my word for. Several commenters here are saying I let my personal feeling convince me how to close. Well, in part, that's where judgement does need to come in, on a close call, add in your own feeling... that's sometimes right and proper in my view (if the alternative is to relist for consensus the third time or do nothing, for example). But in this case, my PERSONAL view, had I chose to commment (on a 5 day overdue for close nom) instead of close... would have been DELETE. Clips are a bit more notable than regular episodes but I do not think any show, even this one, needs an article for every episode. I overlooked that view, because thought at the time that the fact that MedCab/Com was working on this was a reason not to rush this, leave it around, and let them resolve it later. (others below point out that's not necessarily a really good reason...). Also, the medcab argument was made late in the discussion. Arguments made late, if not commented on by people that commented before they were aware of the facts, tend to carry more weight with me when judging consensus. And make no mistake, I was judging consensus without taking my personal desire to delete into account. If this goes back on AfD I'll leave it to someone else to close, so I can comment DELETE. I just don't think that was the right thing to do in view of the mediation thing. If it gets overturned, I'll delete it myself and happily, unless someone beats me to it. One BIG learning I have from this already is the need to explain in more detail when necessary (check out Splash's Phil Sandifer close explanation, it's a model. I hope to be that good someday)... ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, I fail to see what was so strong about the one keep comment that ruled out six delete comments. (Disclaimer: I voted delete in the AfD in question.) BryanG^(talk) 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Now that the article has been largely rewritten, I feel my original concerns no longer apply. Keep rewritten article; however I want it clear that I still do not endorse the original closure. Feel free to relist if you want, although I would now vote to keep. BryanG^(talk) 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Seven, actually. There was a merge/delete in there. — Mike • 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not really a valid vote. You can't merge *and* delete, the edit history needs to be preserved. Closers typically count those as keep votes, since they wanted to keep the content, just didn't understand the finer points of the GFDL. Transwiki votes go as keeps too, while we're at it, since the person also wanted to keep the content. --W.marsh 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And that's why I didn't count the merge/delete vote, although looking at it again I would interpret it as "merge if considered useful or delete". But then, I'm not an admin. It wasn't a straight delete comment anyway, so I'm not counting it as such. BryanG^(talk) 03:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks W.marsh. SO if we ARE insisting on counting votes here, it's 6:3. That's 66% which is a Keep No Consensus. I have a couple of other bones to pick here... first, Mike you keep talking about good faith, and I wish you would stop, because I saw no comments I judged to be in bad faith. Second, you keep citing the Deletion Guideline like it's a process that cannot be deviated from. It's not the law, it's a guide... and we admins are asked to use our judgement. I hope you have internalised that before you become an admin yourself. Third, you suggest I'm "enforcing my own opinion"... "countermanding consensus"... that's not at all fair, those terms are quite loaded, in my view anyway. What I did was look at the arguments made, look at the article and its contents, and made a considered judgement that there wasn't a consensus to delete. That's what the closing admin is supposed to do. This article was 4 days overdue for a decision and I've been thinking about it for some time (I looked at a lot of these on my lunch hour). I also asked some of my admin colleauges on IRC for their thoughts and they agreed with me that K-NC was the right outcome. I'm hopeful that some of them will pop in here. Maybe I'm wrong though and this really was a Delete. I'd like to learn from it if that's the case... but telling me to read something that's a guide, and that I've already read, isn't going to help me learn. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I am citing good faith solely in the context of the deletion guidelines citing bad faith as a valid reason to delete. I am not applying the concept of good or bad faith to your actions. I am bringing it up solely in the context of citing the relevant policy and guidelines that address the actions you take when closing a vote.

Second, I would again repeat my request for any Wikipedia policy or document that provides administrators with the freedom to use their judgment to make a decision that goes against rough consensus when making deletion closures. The relevant cites I can find indicate that in the deletion policy, it states, "At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus for deletion has been reached, the page will be removed per Wikipedia:Deletion process; otherwise the page remains." Rough consensus is defined as outlined in this subsection, with a link to this Wikipedia article.

Third, were we to make the case that a vote, through some improper terminology, should not be included, it should not be included in the total when considering what proportion of the votes are delete votes. In other words, it is not that six out of nine votes were cast to delete, it is that six out of seven votes (85%) were cast to delete. But I really don't agree with those figures, either. That leads me into ...

Fourth, I disagree that the merge/delete vote should not be counted. The text of that vote states, "Merge anything useful into the main Lost article ... otherwise Delete if there is nothing that editors of that article consider to be useful." I believe the text of that vote quite effectively counts as a delete vote. That would make this seven out of eight votes (87.5%).

— Mike • 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since we don't count votes, it still doesn't matter. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was never my intention to count votes, I just did not find the one keep comment persuasive enough to close as "no consensus", given no one else shared this opinion. Of course, the rewritten article makes the whole thing moot for me. BryanG^(talk) 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure well within his discretion, especially considering you can argue that the votes were 3/9 in favor of keeping, and that's a marginal consensus to delete at best. Lar probably should have just said "no consensus" though - since that is different than closing as a pure keep (now more than ever, see the recent changes to Wikipedia:Speedy keep). --W.marsh 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Point of information, it was a Keep No Consensus not a pure keep. Both the close in AfD and the notice on the article talk say Keep No Consensus... ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. The article is bare, but this aired on ABC and Lost has lots of viewers. That lends enough notability that it can be mentioned somewhere imo, and AFD is not the best place to decide merging. Kotepho 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment You're commenting on content, not on process — see above: "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." — Mike • 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  I did both and there is plenty of commenting on content to go around on DRV. Kotepho 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Then I'd ask whatever admin who will review these items and make a decision to ignore your response, given that you're explicitly and self-admittedly not going by WP:DRV policy. — Mike • 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  Policy wonking this way is probably not really appropriate here. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This has also been listed on today's AfD page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey (second nomination)). As far as I see, there has been no consensus to relist, so I've asked for it to be speedily closed pending the results of this DRV. BryanG^(talk) 04:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

*Overturn and delete - with all due respect to the closing admin, I reread ArgentiumOutlaw's point on AFD and I do not see what is convincing about it. He points out that the writer did a good job and that mediators are debating what to do with individual episode articles. Well, as to the first point, a "good job" is not a bar to deletion and as to the second point, unless I'm missing something, this is not an episode. For the benefit of those above debating my "merge and delete" vote (opinion, whatever), I didn't say "merge and delete". Please reread my comment. I said "Merge anything useful ... otherwise delete". In other words, "merge OR delete", not "merge AND delete". BigDT 04:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. I, too, fail to see what is so overwhelming about the sole keep vote, and part of the admin's comment -- I'd keep a clip show before a random episode, if I were commenting -- means that a peculiar personal preference was used as part of the reasoning. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I've read the original and the rewrite (which I hadn't before), and I'm astonished the the closing admin thought the original had the slightest shred of merit to it. The rewrite is better, but that's not saying much: a description of it as an hour-long "Previously on..." recap, with some OR analysis in the article to justify it as something meaningful. Confirm original vote. --Calton | Talk 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, solid explanation from closing admin plus the fact that articles of this nature (major television episodes) are generally kept or merged. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist or delete. Only one keep vote, and its reasoning is extremely weak ("this is a well-written article" does not make the topic noteworthy, and "we're still discussing it" does not make it noteworthy either!); yes, admins are expected to use their judgment, not a raw votecount, to determine consensus, but this was a dubious closure.
  • Not sure who this was... We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'd have preferred if Lar had voted, rather than closing the discussion, since he clearly had a distinct opinion in his own right which, even if valid, didn't correspond to that of any of the users involved. Too often admins will close Deletion discussions in accordance with however they would have voted, rather than in accordance with the discussion itself. If your interpretation of what should be done with the article is unusual enough that people will be surprised by how you close the discussion, you'd probably be better off joining the discussion, so people can read and respond to your reasoning first, rather than just cutting it off with your opinion as the "last word". -Silence 05:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. Also, if I had been commenting I would have commented delete. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There were two points I was making when I voted to Keep. The second point I made was that the article shouldnt have been up for deletion, if you see Requests for mediation, you'll see that there is a mediation committee voting to determine whether or not "Lost episodes each deserve an individual article". If they decide on keeping all episodes in one big article, then the committee will override any AFD decisions made on that one article. Same with the opposite case (ie if they decide every episode deserves a seperate article). Their decision may actually make any decision we reach here useless. Ignoring that, the first reason I gave for keeping, was that I thought the information there was thorough, accurate, and useful. As for the final outcome of keep on the AFD, I personally think we should put aside our "common sense" and go with the majority vote, 'but' through all of my experiences with AFDs and the like, I've realized that in wikipedia votes don't really matter, discussion and consensus determines the victor. I wouldn't dare say that my argument is more sensible than the opposing side because they made an equally legitimate point. So it's really a judgment call on which side brought up the more solid argument. ArgentiumOutlaw 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the absence of a mediation ruling, you can still preserve the solo article in your user space. In either outcome, you would need to have the information at hand. However, no one part of the deliberative process can overturn another, as they should have different targets. The mediation is about whether in the future/final form, there should be a single or breakout presentation and shouldn't be concerned with "should this particular article be deleted." AfD shouldn't be saying anything much about whether the future should look like X or Y, but rather judging a single article in terms of the deletion policy. I.e. during a mediation, pretty much everything should have gone into a sort of escrow space. Geogre 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete. Closing comments an absolutely travesty. "We don't nose count" so I'm siding with a minority of one". Ridiculous. -- GWO

• The closing comments were, theoretically, in line with: a) policy, b) AfD closure best practices, c) using one's [expletive not inserted, but I'm tempted] brain. If you think that sort of comment is inappropriate, you should not be participating in AfD, because the sort of mindset you're displaying here is detrimental to the process and, as a result, Wikipedia as a whole. I would not have closed the way Lar did, but of all the reasons to overturn his close (some of them good), "the admin said what he was supposed to, but I didn't like it" appears not one, not twice, not even three times ... in fact, it doesn't appear at all. That's because it's a very stupid reason indeed. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Absolute travesty"? "Ridiculous"? Tell us how you really feel... ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete - Should have taken part in the discussion rather than just closed with his own saintly admin view. - Hahnchen 09:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Saintly? Thanks! But no. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Everyone knows I don't nose-count either, but there was a clear consensus for deletion. It is not the case that the 'merge and delete' and 'transwiki' opinions could count as 'keep'. "Transwiki" means "This shouldn't be on Wikipedia" and "Merge and delete" means "Some of this might belong in the main article but not here", and both amount to "This Wikipedia article should not exist". The sole keep argument wasn't remotely close to being powerful enough to overturn the near-unanimous consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The recreated article shouldn't be deleted, at least not as a G4 recreation, but my criticism of the closing stands. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as supported by all credible arguments to policy & guidelines in the AfD; transwiki to Lostpedia if GFDL compatibility allows and if they want it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete Reliance on single keep argument unconvincing Bwithh 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete I voted to transwiki in the original AfD thinking that it was possible to transwiki to Lostpedia. Apparantly it is not, so you can count my vote as a delete in the original AfD. —Mets501 (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: Lar was acting within his scope, but my feeling is that the article was weak enough or damaged enough that, at the very least, the article could not exist in that form and at that location and pass peer review in terms of the deletion policy. Sometimes we have to say, "Wikipedians are wrong, but we'll do the delete and work on getting the information presented in a better or more logical way." This would be one of those cases: people voting on AfD could be entirely wrong, but, in the absence of something really crazy, their wrong position should probably prevail. Geogre 12:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: my vote was the overturn and delete after the article is copied into user space pending the outcome of the mediation. I.e. delete, because AfD was clear, but I recommend that the authors and involved parties hold the material. We had a not dissimilar situation with articles on every cricket match in a year. Geogre 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We don't vote. But I agree that the mediation issue may not have been correctly interpreted by me at the time. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The closure statement makes clear that, rather than acting within discretion on the merits of the debate, the admin was effectively imposing his own views on it instead. Should have participated in it, in that case. Furthermore, the arguments to delete are easily as compelling as the argument given to keep, and though we don't nose count, we do pay attention to the reasons why a number of people may have reached the same conclusion. I should also say that I don't think a wriggle of "no consensus" applies here. There's an obvious enough consensus among the participants, it's just that the admin didn't like it too much. If Lar wanted to spin the debate his way, he should probably simply have declared a straight "keep". I just discovered from User talk:Lar that Lar discussed this with others in IRC. That's fine, but one should remember that being trendy and brutal and treating AfD as a stupid bunch of idiots is extremely fashionable there, and that decisions made based on who goes "yay" to earn a laugh on IRC are generally decisions made poorly and in haste. -Splash - tk 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfD can't really withstand such a completely different article. It would need a new debate. It's hardly for DRV to mandate an AfD of an article it was never asked to review; that's for an editor to do on their own initiative. So I think now there should be no action. -Splash - tk 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping you'll revise and extend your remarks to clarify some of the possibly misleading statements above in view of what we discussed on your talk page, Splash... ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, as per Mike and others above. It seems that a consensus in favor of deletion was ingnored. PJM 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Or, that when I evaluated it, I (possibly incorrectly) did not find consensus. Please assume good faith. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No stones thrown from this glass house - I do assume GF. Just commenting based on my perspective. PJM 17:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Relist on AfD, AfD isn't a straw count and no good reason was advanced for deletion. IMO, closing admin probably did the right thing. Still, retention/deletion could be argued either way... recommend a fresh AfD.--Isotope23 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete; I agree with Lar that 1 suggestion can override seven other ones. However, I do not find this particular one convincing at all. - Liberatore(T) 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Notice: The article has now substantially been re-written to address the issues it previously had, excising the Original Research, and adding verifiable, sourced content. It is no longer the same article that was AfDed.--Leflyman^Talk 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow. That article is RADICALLY different/better than the one here: here which was the article as it appeared just after the first AfD notice was placed. But remember that DRV is fundamentally not about article content, it's more about process. This new article (and specifically the fact that the editors have done a lot to show why it's notable) should not be used to evaluate whether the close was right or not, or whether how I closed it could stand improvement. IMHO anyway. I closed based in part on the article as it was then, which was not very good compared to how it is now, and commenters should keep that in mind when commenting. If the old article had been deleted I think it would be hard to argue that the new one is "substantially identical" and subject to a speedy under CSD criteria, so that it's now a lot better is fundamentally not relevant to whether the close was good or not. It DOES however have bearning on how a new AfD might do. I stand behind my assertion that I would have personally advocated Delete on it as it was then, if I had been commenting and if it were not for the mediation issue (as I contemplated it at the time) ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it does have a bearing on those suggesting "Overturn and delete" as such a "vote" is based on the discussion of the merits of the original article that was in place during the AfD, which in effect, has been deleted. This new article has almost entirely different content-- and thus the deletion of it would now be improper. It may be appropriate to re-open discussion as a fresh AfD based on this new version. --Leflyman^Talk 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with respect to the article itself, the overturns now may be partly moot, or alternatively no one would justifiably complain about the new content being re-added if the article WERE deleted. I'm still interested in seeing this discussion run its course so that those folk wanting to offer good, constructive feedback to me can do so and I can improve. That means taking some less useful ("ridiculous", "saintly" (can I be both at once?!!)) feedback as well, but that's a small price to pay. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete: 6 votes of 9 for deletion and one vote for merge is conditional with deletion in mind. And only one vote to keep. IMO it's a clean consensus and article must be deleted. MaxSem 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't vote. Nose counting misses the points I made above. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep: wait to see result of mediation on the episodes. Lost is a high profile series, and if result is to keep details there, keeping this would be consistent. Also, it's good to see "Not a vote" being carried through once in a while. Stephen B Streater 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure In terms of discussion, which is ultimately what AFD is, we have nobody who specifically referenced policy or guidelines and showed meeting or failure, so the strongest possible arguments were not made. The keep reference to a mediation is stronger than any of the other arguments made, most importantly stronger than the two subsequent arguments. (It is acceptable for the closing admin to assume that prior commentators were not aware of that mediation request.) Strength of reasoning is more important than strength of numbers, and no consensus equals keep. If the mediation fails, there is nothing to prevent sending this for another AFD, where the failure of the mediation would remove that argument. GRBerry 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is no law against re-listing this article for deletion if you disagree with the outcome. Silensor 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's moot now as the article has been completely rewritten and I seriously doubt anyone would want to delete the new article, but the second AFD was closed by the same admin who closed the first one ... which would tend to impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDT (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you rephrase that last part? What does "impeach the notion that liberty would have been granted to represent the AFD" mean? It just doesn't make any sense to me although I read it a few times. As for the second AfD though, it's really quite meaningless to have a Deletion Review going (which can result in an action taken against the article) AND an AfD (which also can result in an action taken against the article) at the same time, so starting it was flawed and it needed to be speedy closed till this process concludes, as others have pointed out. I'm starting to suspect that WCityMike (who opened the second AfD, out of process) just really did not want this article here and is willing to do quite a bit to see it and other articles go away. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with objectivity or lead one to do rash or out of process things, or lose civility. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, nothing wrong with an admin using his discretion.-Polotet 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but do not endorse the closure of the AFD - now that the article has been totally rewritten, my reasons for advocating its deletion no longer exist. Now that the article is something wholly different than the original one that should have been deleted, we may as well close this DRV as the deletion (or lack thereof) being reviewed is moot. If someone thinks the new one should be deleted, they can relist it. (I would vote/opine/whatever to keep.) BigDT 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD. I see no real problem with Lar's clsoe, but I understand why people do. The new article is different, though, so it's worth another hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD. Geogre and Badlydrawnjeff both make good points here. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per mike, Liberatore, and others above. Note: I voted delete in the original AfD, but find the article still merits deletion. Deleuze 12:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - relist on Afd if the deleters wan't. this is an awfully long discussion for a simple issue - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - if we are 'vote'-counting, it's 6 deletes, one transwiki (not a keep or a delete, and Lostpedia can't be transwikied to, so let's ignore the vote), and the one keep vote was nowhere near being any good (keep, as it took some effort?) I'm sorry, but it looks very much like Lars made a mistake here. Would be happy with a relist, providing it's not immediately pulled as 'not being in process'. Proto///type 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I think that consensus was incorrectly, even arbitrarily, established, but delete per the AfD would be inappropriate as the article has now been completely rewritten. Sandstein 06:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo without prejudice to any further AfD- since the article is now so different, this discussion is largely moot. However, if someone thinks the article in its current form should be deleted, they can take it AfD where it should not be met with the argument that it recently survived AfD. As it was a no consensus closure, that argument should not be used. Metamagician3000 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think it's perfectly fine to argue against an immediate AfD on a normal no consensus closure, but this would be an AfD on a DIFFERENT article... ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist in AfD - Unjusted closure by admin --WinHunter ^(talk) 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure If deletionists want to base things on numerical majorities they should put effort into their discussion points. AfD is not a vote, it is that simple. Ansell 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006

User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes and Template:User Gangster

These were both deleted out of process by Drini. They were taken to tfd, but had a keep consensus and were closed. He claims to have deleted it because he followed the official policy, but it doesn't meet the Deletion policy. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4 and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 5. No evil boxes was also closed because of defective listing. See this edit. They do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and the debates both resulted in a keep. Dtm142 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

as my comments were requested. I did quote policy and followed it. -- Drini 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Further explanation. There are some policies that are more fundamental than others (recall the five pillars) ? I followed them and thus I stand that I didn't act out of policy. If the lower policies are in contradiction with the fundamental ones, the fundamental ones take precedence.-- Drini 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To which fundamental policy do you refer? Be specific, please; I'm not a mind reader, and could not locate where you quoted policy in the deletion for the second (the deletion log just says "tfd"). Jay Maynard 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4. He quoted the policies there. Reguardless, it was out of process. Dtm142 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to end this userbox war with a community compromise, not have you look for reasons to delete stuff. If it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria or deletion policy, it doesn't get deleted. Dtm142 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete on the first and put the 2nd one up for user space adoption by someone who was linking to it. Here we go again. Guess I was a fool to hope that WP:GUS would calm the deletionists down. --StuffOfInterest 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and MfD the first because it had two parallel reviews going on on separate MfD dates. The closing admin for the June 5 version (Xoloz) attempted to close both as an unsalvagable mess, but somehow that closure became disassociated with the June 4 review. The June 5 closure contained an explicit note that keep was the likely result of a clean nomination and review. Having two simultateous reviews with opposite conclusions is reason enough to send it back for a single combined review, having two closures with opposite conclusions for a single review is also enough to send it back, and we have both here.. Overturn, undelete, and leave alone for the second, because it has survived two separate TfD reviews in the past month. (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 24 for the first TfD discussion, which was referenced in the second.) GRBerry 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Endorse for the second, when I tried to multi-task I got it wrong. The closers rationale isn't enough reason to prevent WP:GUS, but the argument by Nhprman was a better argument for deletion than any of the keep arguments (as the prior TfD closed with no consensus rather than a clear keep consensus). GRBerry 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Weren't we just here? Why are admins trying to torpedo the German userbox solution?? Jay Maynard 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and, yes, I'll support move User Gangster to userspace, per WP:GUS. Jay Maynard 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both, move User Gangster to userspace per WP:GUS. We try to navigate out of the userbox mess and to find a compromise (following Jimbo's suggestion) when suddendly some admins start torpedoing the entire effort. CharonX/talk 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete follow the German solution (supported by Jimbo as compromise). No reason for the deletion as they don't meet T1. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• undelete both of these please find a better compramise Yuckfoo 01:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete both and move the second to user space, per WP:GUS —Mira 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• The former was already in userspace. Dtm142 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I said move the second one to user space. —Mira 02:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted No evil. T1/G4 (Tony Sidaway). Kotepho 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  G4 does not apply for recreating a deleted userbox in userspace. T1 does not apply in userspace. Dtm142 03:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  1) Yes, it does. Read the rfar. 2) Yes, it does. This is a logical extention of the rfar. (If something is inappropriate enough that if it was deleted in Template: it should not be recreated in User:, anything that would meet said criteria would still be inappropriate in User: even had it not been deleted in Template: previously.) Saying "no it doesn't" is not going to convince anyone and it does not make it true. Kotepho 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and deal with per WP:GUS. Kotepho, I wouldn't argue that these boxes can't be speedied - they certainly can - but I would argue that they shouldn't be, if the goal is to end the userbox controversy with a minimum of collateral damage. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Changing my vote to relist on MfD for the first and endorse deletion for the second. I should have looked more carefully at first; what a crap box. Thanks Kimchi.sg, for caling attention to that. I'd vote to delete either on MfD or TfD, but only the first one deserves its week there. Refraining from speedying all but the most egregious boxes would be a great good-faith gesture on the part of userbox deletionists. The gangster box though, really has no redeeming value. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let me just say ... oh thank god I don't care about this shit anymore. It's sooooo much more relaxing. Ohh, you all should try it, I'm in heaven over here. --Cyde?Weys 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete both, and Userfy the second one per WP:GUS. jgp 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first, WP:GUS Relist (TfD) the second one, and Remove Drini's admin rights for a week or two while we implement WP:GUS. _{No offense meant, Drini.} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem I'm used to people calling for admins desysopping for doing The Right Thing (TM) and following policy.

• Question. Does T1 apply in userspace or not? I'm seeing conflicting opinions on that issue. Anyone care to back theirs up with a link? Either way, T1 doesn't apply to the first one at all. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  There are different 'interpretations'. T1 became policy without sitting through the normal proposal and consensus procedures because it was endorsed by Jimbo. Jimbo has repeatedly said that the 'problem' is that things in the template namespace might be considered to be 'supported' by Wikimedia, and thus userboxes stating a disputed viewpoint should be moved to user space. Since 'T1' became policy because Jimbo said it should I don't see how it can be 're-interpreted' to mean something directly contradictory to Jimbo's position and still retain it's validity as a policy. The alternate view is apparently that you cannot transclude disputed viewpoints... you can have them directly on your user page, but not transcluded in from a sub-page in user space or anywhere else. This is based on an interpretation of the word 'template' in T1 being meant to cover 'anything transcluded' rather than 'things in the Template: namespace' as Jimbo has advocated. But then, Jimbo also said, "don't go on any sprees deleting", and we've seen how well some people listened to that. --CBDunkerson 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. MaxSem 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Relist the first on MfD and keep deleted and prohibit userspace creation of Template:Gangster. "This user is a gangster" is a statement which has strong intimidating overtones (unlike "This user is a homosexual" or even "This user hates the EFF") and I would protest even if one were to just write it on his user page in plain form. Template:Gangster goes beyond the acceptable bounds of good taste and should not be retained even in user space. Kimchi.sg 06:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Which policy, aside from T1 or G4, does the second violate? If there's something besides those two, then I'll support deleting it. Jay Maynard 12:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per above.  Grue  06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete first, germanize gangster and be done with it. Misza13 ^{T C} 08:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first. Keep the second deleted - the second one was in template space and was fair game for deletion. If someone wants to userfy it they should feel free to do so. There are admins who will assist. Metamagician3000 11:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first per WP:GUS, Endorse deletion the 2nd. Gangster template is simply unacceptable. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the first and Userify the second per WP:DEUTSCH. — CJewell (talk to me) 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Deletions were out of process and contradictory to apparent consensus at TfD/MfD. Seemingly no applicable policy for deletion. --CBDunkerson 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and userfy if necessary. Nobody who has been paying attention here would have expected these speedies to go unchallenged - and thus they were improper speedy deletions. Please remember --Speedy Deletion is not a Toy 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

for the record, it wasn't a speedy deletion (if you look at that definition) it was just a normal deletion, where I applied fundamental policies to close a TFD. Can people stop callign this a speedy? Nowadays people just like to say it without stopping to consider that. For it to have been a speedy, I would have to delete on sight as I saw it withouth doing the whole TFD thing. 00:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an out of process deletion. They were already closed with a keep consensus and a defective listing before you closed them again and deleted them. Fundamental policies can be referenced during a tfd, but to determine the outcome, you look at what the community says and the deletion policies. I don't care if you delete it if it goes through an mfd with a delete consensus. Dtm142 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They were already closed with a keep consensus . MM. No. Majority doens't always mean consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Drini 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Any deletion which does not come as the result of an unchallenged 'prod' or consensus in a delete discussion is, by default, a 'speedy' delete... taken solely on the perogative of the admin performing the deletion without implied (per 'prod') or direct (per '*fD') consensus. As to your citation of the pillars - your action violates pillar four for certain (acting directly contrary to consensus is not 'cooperative') and is as much against pillar one (in that starting pointless fights over window dressing disrupts building the encyclopedia) as for it (in that the boxes in question did not build the encyclopedia). --CBD 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete 1st & Userify 2nd as mentioned a few times. --Scandalous 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy as per what Jimbo says is reasonable about the German solution. The idea that Drini could close so many TfD's with a generic closing message about the five pillars when really they were not for one, all relevant, and two, all followed by the action. Ansell 11:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Userfy User:gangster.. this is absolute racism against minority. undelete now--Bonafide.hustla 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete - they weren't templates, so speedying them as T1 was inappropriate. I think it's hilarious that the mantra of those pushing the German plan was that it would end the UBX wars because once in template space, administrators would magically stop deleting things out of process. BigDT 23:09, 17 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)

• Endorse closure. If it was in fact published in 1914, there is no problem. See, among other sources, UPenn's guide here. By the way, was I the only one who thought of this poem when senator Jeff Sessions said, with regard to plans to build five hundred or so miles of Berlin-Wall-like fencing,"Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors?" Ignoring, of course, the point that there's a difference between a co-operative fence maintained jointly by two neighbors and a unilateral fence... Unless I'm missing something, Mexico isn't offering to pay for half of this border fence. But I digress. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even if User:Robertsteadman were correct in saying that the poem was still subject to copyright, we could just revert the article to a non-infringing version. And if the poem is in the public domain, we don't have a problem at all. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The ever-amazing BD2412, who does IP for a living, quickly cited this source, a current US government circular, which plainly lays that issue to rest. Praise BD! Xoloz 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: AfD and DRV are not the proper venues for changing Wikipedia's general understanding of copyright. The poem is, of course, very well known and is, in fact, one of those poems that people who don't know poetry will have read (because they were forced to). Now, don't ask me how I loathe Robert Frost, but don't ask me to want the article deleted because one person thinks the whole project's vision of copyright should yield to his own. Geogre 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we're all wrong about the copyright status of this poem, and Project Gutenberg is too, I think the only recourse Mr. Steadman has is to Foundation legal counsel, as Xoloz suggests. Alleged non-notability is not a good reason to bring this article here; there were arguments made on both sides at the AfD, and there was no consensus to delete. I am very much hoping this is the last I see of this issue. -- SCZenz 12:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - how on earth did anyone even consider deleting an article about what is by common knowledge one of the most famous modern poems in the English language? Metamagician3000 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You did read the copyright discussion, right? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes... did you? The copyright issue was a non-starter, unless you were willing to believe that Wikipedia:Public domain was incorrect (which one user was). Aside from that, we don't delete pages containing copyvio if we can just remove the copy vio. -- SCZenz 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not discussing the merits of the copyright issue, merely that there were concerns, and it was perfectly valid for anyone who has concerns to raise them, the attacks on them by Metamagician3000 and possibly yourself notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I did indeed read about the alleged copyright issue. That was not the point of my comment. I was addressing claims that the poem is not notable, or not known to be. I see no copyright issue that was relevant to AfD, since (1) it seems pretty clear that the material is in the public domain and (2) in any event that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. It's not like anyone was saying the whole article was a copyvio. However, people can raise whatever possible issues they want. I'm not attacking anyone or anything; I'm saying that this is obviously a notable poem which is at least as deserving of an article as the latest Marvel Comics supervillain or whatever. Metamagician3000 03:38, 17 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)