Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

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

Content review

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

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

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• Category:Political divisions of the United States and its Talk. This was apparently deleted last year without going through the usual CfR process, and the history would be useful in the current CfR debate. --William Allen Simpson 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. If you couldt tag it for speedy or ping my talk once you're done. -Splash^talk 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4#Subdivisions to Administrative divisions --William Allen Simpson 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Category:Administrative divisions of South Korea and its Talk. As above. --William Allen Simpson 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As requested. If you might be so kind as to repeat the above with this as well. —Encephalon 12:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

10 April 2006

Cleveland steamer

Kept at Afd not once but twice. Arguments for deletion: unverifiable from any reliable sources, no reliable source has ever been cited. Arguments for keep: "Real, I've heard of it"; removing it would be "censorship". Two AfDs, several tags, numerous arguments, and not one reliable source has ever been cited. Which leads me to believe that no reliable source can be cited, because none exists. So, how long do we have to wait before we finally acknowledge that, or does it get to stay forever and we amend WP:V to say any old nonsense can be added as long as we tag it as unverifiable? Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Why is this being discussed here if the article has not been deleted? Silensor 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - if you dislike it, list on VFD and don't forum shop. An old version, while needing massive cleanup, did have a number of uses of the term in popular culture, including Family Guy and the Daily Show. Its existence is not in question and its definition is not in question. Calling for deletion on the grounds of unverifiability is simple process wanking. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No it's not. Why does sex stuff have a lower notability verifiability threshold than anything else? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Where did I say it does or should? This also doesn't seem to be about notability, but about verifiability. The VFDs concluded that a majority of voters believe it to be "notable", which is more or less rough consensus, as much as can be said about the notability of anything. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Freudian slip. I meant verifiability (actually, the two are virtually synonymous to me). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • My point still holds. Where did I say it does or should? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the ambiguity. The part that was aimed at you was the "no it's not". The comment about verifiability was a general question. I don't have an answer for it, though, and it is doubtless true. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Certainly there are good enough sources for this. If other articles are being deleted for having similar sourcing, that's a problem with their deletion. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Then where are these sources? It's not my responsibility to find them. It's the responsibility of people who want to keep the "facts" in the article. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Sam's correct. According to wikipedia policy, it is attributed to the person inserting the information to cite sources, not to the person removing it. And a citation from Family Guy is worthless in a encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
            • They were removed by Brian G. Crawford, and then revert-warred over. I have restored some of the better ones. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I think they were rmeoved because they are not reliable sources. There are still, as of this moment, no reliable sources for this article, it remains unverified. The only references appear to be a couple of comedy shows. I'd say it's a classic protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
                • There are certainly reliable sources that show that it exists across many works. Certainly better than the average Pokemon. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • That's an argument for deleting Pokemon, not for keeping junk like this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • It's an argument for keeping this if I think Pokemon should be kept. Which I do. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the alledged "references" are absolutely unacceptable and should be nowhere near this site. The most recent I looked at [1] is a blatent porn site link. I appluad Brian for taking common sense into effect and zapping that nonsense.-Zero^Talk 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Uh? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Daily Show and Family Guy references make it quite blatant about what the meaning is. Also, I think there was a Savage Love column a while ago that discussed what it was. Someone should just go through and put in those citations. 128.36.90.72 21:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Two debates, and still no verification? Overturn and delete unless verified before this debate closes. --Doc ^ask? 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do not overturn, relist if Guy wants. Process was followed both times, DRV does not overturn AfD based purely on the content of the article. Or in other words, AfD is overturned when the closing admin's interpretation of consensus is questionable, or when new evidence is presented that could conceivably have changed the outcome, not "because they got it wrong". DRV should be a safety net, not the 'second round' of deletion discussions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• No, process was not followed. AfD was treated like a vote (which it is not) rather than on policy (which in this case means it must be removed, as no sources could be found). If it can be verified from reliabel sources, fine, but last I saw it could not. Despite mass protestations that iot could. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• My judgement may be somewhat clouded because... I heard of it on teh Internets as well :-). It's not that I don't believe in verifiability, I just don't want to see 100 or even 50 articles a day on this page. If a discussion on DRV is divided into AfD's "keep" and "delete", as it is here, rather than "keep deleted" or "undelete", DRV is becoming a rematch instead of a reconsideration, and that must not happen.
• I think for AfD to declare "Professor H. Q. Tenure of the University of Intercourse Pennsylvania may not have written a study on this subject, but if its been referenced in pop culture so many times it's worth an article" is a valid result. After all, if we have featured articles that are only mentioned in a single pop culture reference, surely we can have things that are mentioned in a mere few. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• The episode of Family Guy that mentioned this meme was "Mr. Saturday Knight" [2]. It seems trivial to verify that there is at least an internet meme about it (75,000 Google hits). At the very very least it has to be redirected to wherever we have a list. Pcb21 Pete 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep... Verifiable source.... hows the San Francisco Bay Guardian? I think the fact there are over 80,000 google hits for the exact phrase "Cleveland Steamer" says we need an article on it.  ALKIVAR™ 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't deleted. You mean "keep" JoshuaZ 22:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And that reference says that there is a t-shirt form getoffended.com. But no reliable sources. Still waiting on those. Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh so a newspaper with an audience of 150,000 isnt a "verifiable source" ... gotcha...  ALKIVAR™ 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry to be a broken record but why is this being discussed here? The article has not been deleted and this discussion does not belong here. Silensor 22:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Forum shopping. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• I have voted "delete" on this article's recent AfD and some of the others of its ilk. However after seeing the support for them I have a new suggestion. Merge this article with others such as Donkey Punch, et al into a single article dealing with the phenomenon of fictitious sex acts, maybe Fictitious sex acts phenomenon (Note: I am aware that these things may have actually occurred before the popularization of these terms but that is pure coincidence. By fictitious and imaginary I mean that the creators of these terms were not sexual historians referring to real-life acts but comedy writers who probably developed the definition from their imagination) The benefit to doing it this way is that by referring to them as fictional, we can use the web pages where they first appeared as sources for the phenomenon of the creation of these terms, instead of the current line of thinking which forces us to pretend like there was some sort of sexual underground where folks went around bragging about pulling "Cleveland steamers" on people. And of course when as in the case of Donkey punch that porn movies start showing these things after the phrases have become popular, that information can be added to the article I've suggested, and indeed it might actually make for encyclopedic content to examine how and why a sex act can go from fiction to reality. GT 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• DRV is not the place to refight an AFD debate over an article that was kept. Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Bearcat 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Censure forum shopping. Keep article. Discuss problems on talk. Grace Note 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, unless someone can find a real reference. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified before this debate closes. Johntex\^talk 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Newsflash: This is not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to delete the article, take it to WP:AFD. Silensor 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "It[Deletion review] also considers disputed decisions made in other deletion-related fora." That's from the top of this page. Deletion review is for revewing any AFD decision, whether keep or delete. It would be strange to say that only delete decisions can be disputed. Dmcdevit·t 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Last I checked, DRV is for any deletion discussion that may have been closed inappropriately, regardless of whether the article was deleted or kept. If JzG believes the AfD discussion was closed inappropriately (and I will say that there would have been good reason to discount several of the Keep votes), then this is the appropriate forum for reviewing that decision. I am not going to vote here, though, because I can see both sides; it's arguable both that there was no consensus and that there was consensus to delete.
  • Last I checked, Deletion review (formerly known as Votes for Undeletion) was to discuss overturning the deletion of an article, not vice-versa. Silensor 00:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Checked where? Precedent says differently, see just recently List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC). But I suggest this discussion of what DRV can be used for belongs on the talk page of this --Doc ^ask? 00:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Actually, nowadays DRV is able to go over all decisions made in AFD, MFD, TFD, xFD, etcetera, including keeps. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Then I'd strongly suggest that the intro blurb at the top of DRV be edited to state that, because as it stands the intro explicitly states that the purpose is to review disputed deletions, not disputed keeps. Bearcat 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• If this is verifiable, then why isn't it cited with sources that meet WP:RS? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Again keep, relist on AfD if you are so conserned with it. bbx 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and relist, verifiable. Google search comes up with over 83,000 hits. Yahoo comes up with 48,000 hits. Also here's a direct reference for you reference JohnnyBGood 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dances of Detroit

Requesting to restore page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dances_of_Detroit Was delted for copyright violation at website http://www.detroitdepot.net/depot/dance.php However, owner made this contribution (me). Page was linked under See also portion of Detroit main page.

So what part of "do not link to sites you own or control" were you having trouble understanding? And what is the evidence that these dances are unique to Detroit? Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Rikki Lee Travolta

I'm bringing up an AfD I closed myself as "delete" up here, because User:Everyking contacted me saying I closed it too hastily. As you can see from the AfD discussion, there are plenty of votes that can be seen as ballot stuffing. Therefore I determined that the overall feeling of the Wikipedia community was towards deletion, and closed it as delete.

I am opening this up to see whether the outcome is "undelete and keep", "undelete and relist" or "keep deleted". I am voting keep deleted myself. JIP | Talk 13:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Quite obviously closed properly, ignoring massive astroturfing. If Everyking isn't willing to ask for review himself I'm tempted to say speedy endorse closure if such a thing exists so we don't have to go through this nonsense again. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse closure as above. All but a couple of the keep votes were from new users or users whose only edits were to the article, and there were lots of deletes. I don't feel like doing a count but it looks like the consensus was about 95% delete, discounting suspected socks. That should be plenty. Suggest that this be speedy-endorsed per overwhelming consensus and strong verifiability issues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (but not speedily). Everyking asking JIP is Everyking being courteous. IMO, it's better to talk to the admin first before putting it up for DRV. That JIP brought it up on DRV is also courtesy on JIP's part. That all said, I think the AfD was validly analysed and closed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I echo Deathphoenix's comments on the courtesy displayed in this review request. Would that every debate here were equally civil. Rossami (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd (but not speedily) per Deathphoenix. Kudos for the civil request, but I have no idea what could seriously call this AfD into question. Obvious flood of "newbies with an apparent agenda," easy votes to disqualify. Xoloz 15:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid closure, AfD was open for five days, I see no need to reconsider. Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, salt the earth. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• endorse closure (full disclosure I voted to delete in the AfD). JoshuaZ 18:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: While I don't necessarily have an issue with the way the AfD was closed given the unfortunate way we deal with socks in such discussions, the AfD was presented with the problem of self-promotion which was never really clearly figured out from my biew, and verifiability, which was more than dealt with as there are plenty of sources verifying who this person is. While the unfortunately overwhelming consensus was to delete in the face of verifiable information keeps me from saying that this should be overturned at this point, I am curious as to how much weight the actual argument was given in the closure. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment His existence was verifiable, however his own press releases are not sufficient indication of notability or verifiability of any of his supposedly notable claims. 128.36.90.72 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mylifeoftravel.com

This page was deleted after a small number of editors claimed the site is not notable and does not have the membership to warrant the page. I would like this reviewed as I believe the site membership exceeds many of the social networking websites listed on Wikipedia. The site also offers features unique to the blogging industry (interactive mapping, advanced journal sharing and contact tree grouping) and I believe those who voted against it did not take the time to review the site.

There are nearly 2000 social networking websites maintaining pages in Wikipedia, many of which do not have anywhere close to the same membership, nor do they offer technology unique to the industry.

I cannot provide a list of current membership as this is confidential, but I can provide a list of URL's to blog homepages as at the end of our initial test month (October 2005) which clearly shows a user base large enough to provide evidence of credibility for both being notable and verifiable.: Calanh 09:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(moved this ridiculously long list to User:Samuel Blanning/Mylifeoftravel to preserve the flow of this page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Valid AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mylifeoftravel.com. Flood of unsigned votes from anonymous contributors was properly discounted as per WP:SOCK. --Allen3 ^talk 10:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Valid AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. AfD was subject to attempted sockpuppet/anon ballot stuffing and rightly closed as a delete among established users. This is a non-notable website. David | Talk 11:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. These guys have got to realise that simply showing up at the door doesn't automatically entitle you to a vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AFD. Sockpuppet flood was pathetic, most of them didn't even bother to create accounts. I'd also like to ask the nominator to present evidence for the claim that "There are nearly 2000 social networking websites maintaining pages in Wikipedia" That's surprising, considering that List of social networking websites only lists about 50 or so of them. Please let us know where the other 1,950 social networking website articles might be hiding. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd Claims of DRV nomination are dubious, as was the effort of article's supporters at the original AfD. Deletion right on the merits, no flaw in process. Xoloz 15:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Validly closed AfD, more than the usual number of "votes", clear consensus to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Discounting the sockpuppet vote, the original consensus was pretty clear. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

9 April 2006

List of news aggregators

Article was put up to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of news aggregators where there was 64.3% for deletion which is far below what is normally considered standard deletion consensus. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion: The aggregation of content on the web by reliable sources is becoming increasingly important as the volume of unverified material grows. The list can develop over time with articles about the important entries. Stephen B Streater 07:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Last time I checked, we didn't determine consensus by vote tallies. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course we don't, we determine it by consensus and I apologize if I wasn't clear that I didn't hold the vote tally to be any form of measurement but even ignoring the vote tally there was not a clear consensus to delete. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. 64% allows the closing admin to use his discretion and weigh up the arguments, and as none of the keep voters managed to explain why Wikipedia is not a collection of external links is no longer policy, he was justified in closing as a delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure WP:NOT this.--Doc ^ask? 13:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure At least two of the keep voters were potentially disqualifiable as new editors, and the established users who voted keep did so weakly. Hence, even for those worried about percentages, the number is probably much higher. Xoloz 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Just a collection of external links, against policy per Sam B. Better to have a category and wiki articles, for those who think this is worthwhile. · rodii · 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist 64.3% isn't consensus. Computerjoe's talk 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Pray tell how you can tell if there is consensus from calculating percentages. Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc glasgow. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam and Doc. JoshuaZ 02:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted. Proceurally, Xoloz nailed this one on the head: discounting sockpuppets and new accounts per ordinary operating procedure, two of the keeps were "weak", which also has an influence in the way the closing admin reads the debate. Also, judging on the merits of the article, it is a list of external links, breaking WP:NOT. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Even if the AfD had been clearly closed wrongly (which it wasn't) the article is against policy as purely external links and not of encyclopaedic value. David | Talk 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per precedent of keeping similar software lists. Inconsistency is POV.  Grue  12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a list of Wikipedia articles. It's a list of external links. The content as it stands would be by and large worthless to other editors, and only encourage linkspam. Anyone who wants to create a real list is free to do so. Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the article as written was complete rubbish, and probably qualified for a speedy, let alone an AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. WP:NOT a collection of external links (which is all this "article" is). Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, the number of votes does not matter since AfD is a discussion page, not a vote page, and the article clearly violates Wikipedia policy at WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure it seems fairly clear that the consensus was to delete. Ziggurat 21:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

8 April 2006

Joshua Wolf

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Wolf

The article about me, was recently deleted after it was deemed that I am not a notable figure. While that may be true, it's important to note that I have never identified with the name "Joshua Wolf" beyond legal documents and thus, the google searches for that name revealed very little of what I have been involved in throughout my recent years. Had they Googled "Josh Wolf" instead, they would've been offered a very different perspective on myself, and I think it's important for that to be considered.

It seems weird to do so, but I feel that I should list some of my accomplishments in order to better decide whether or not I am a notable person.

The wikipedia article stems from a legal case I am currently involved in pertaining to my rights as an independent journalist and videoblogger, and the footage that I shot during a protest which has since been subpoenad by the Federal Grand Jury. The details of that case can be found here.

I have also maintained a videoblog for over a year, and have been actively involved on Current.TV's website dating back to it's days as INdTV and became their official meetup group organzier (the group is still active with 275 members but is no longer affiliated with Current TV). In part due to my outspoken views of Current's policies both on their message boards and my blog, I was profiled in an article for (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/11/goretv/index.html Salon) magazine, and my photograph was featured in [http://flickr.com/photos/69258677@N00/31389600/ TIME) magazine as a critic of Current.

I am also the co-founder of the (http://riseupnetwork.com Rise Up Network) a non-profit media distribution organization still very much in development but focused on online and DVD distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.146.120 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted One legal case and minor advocacy work do not an enecyclopedic subject make. Pretty much covered at the the AFD. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (Italicized word added by Swatjester)
• Keep deleted This case may very well become notable, but it is still a developing story, really in embryonic form. Additionally, a request from the article's subject is not usually treated as compelling evidence, given obvious bias. Xoloz 17:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the subject is pointing out that participants in AfD failed to find information that would have been relevant to the debate, because the article was entitled "Joshua Wolf" rather than the more common "Josh Wolf". Thus the AfD didn't consider the Time and Salon coverage linked to above. You are of course still entitled to hold opinions of notability, but the request has a genuine basis. --bainer (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Xoloz. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD There is a small but significant chance that this new evidence will make it be kept. JoshuaZ 18:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/keep deleted, valid AfD. I userfied this article to User:Joshwolf on 03:38, 9 April 2006 per user request, and since the AfD already resulted in a deletion due to non-notability, I think the article as it currently resides is fine (ie, it doesn't belong in the main articlespace). However, I would note that I didn't perform the userfy request until after he already submitted this DRV, so it could be that this DRV is no longer necessary after the userfication. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion... if the article creater wants to recreate the article, we can debate this shaky evidence on the next AfD. Mangojuice 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Deathphoenix. Just zis Guy you know? 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

John Scherer

Adequate stub article speedied after objections to PROD. Content short, but provided necessary context, and subject conspicuously notable (as acknowledged in deletion log). Monicasdude 19:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but feel free to recreate an article. The full content was 'John Scherer is the creater and owner of Video Professor(tm) brand computer learning software.' If you read the notes to the page above, you will find it says: If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub "undeleted". If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. That works for me. --Doc ^ask? 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overtun and undelete There is no reason to delete a single sentence stub in this case. If verifiability is your worry, I can comfirm that Scherer's ads pop up on my television at least five times a day. Annoying fellow, he is. Xoloz 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It's a valid speedy for an empty article, but it also is a valid topic, so if it is rewritten, that edit should be undeleted for GFDL purposes. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So someone go re-write it - or undelete it or whatever. I hardly think anyone is going to assert there GDFL rights over one sentence, but whatever. This is not worth a debate. Anyone who wants it, go write it, with or without undeletion. --Doc ^ask? 22:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but write an actual article or at least an actually adequate stub if you want. Instead of singing yet another chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred", do the work yourself. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As a devout believer in Onanism, I'd never sing that song; nevertheless, especially since anon page creation has been disabled, a tiny stub is much nicer than nothing. :) Xoloz 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc. If you want it, go write it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, friends, I have recreated the article by cutting and pasting the original sentence, and adding all I know about this man. It's recreated as you asked. How about we don't speedy it now, since I was only doing as was asked? Xoloz 15:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, as that action always was legitimate. It is clearly not a speedy candidate now, so if anyone wishes to contest it they can go to AfD. --Doc ^ask? 16:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gigi Stone

Adequate stub article speedied after objections to PROD. Content short, but provided necessary context, and subject (ABC-TV news correspondent) meets notability criteria. Monicasdude 19:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but recreate and expand if you wish. Full content wasGigi Stone is a correspondent at ABC News. - validly deleted as emply (see my full reasoning above)--Doc ^ask? 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete A single sentence is often enough a sufficient stub. No compelling reason for deletion given in this case. Xoloz 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but write an actual article or at least an actually adequate stub if you want. Instead of singing yet another chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred", do the work yourself. --Calton | Talk 00:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc. See other similar case above (or below, wherever it is).⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, exactly what Doc said. Just zis Guy you know? 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

6 April 2006

George Goble

Inappropriate PROD. Someone wrote an article about the notable engineer George H. Goble (who already had an article) but called it George Gobles, mispelling Goble's name. This led to a PROD because the misspelling got few Google hits. I unprodded and moved the article but it got deleted anyway. I request undeletion for purpose of merging into George H. Goble and redirecting. Phr 14:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think there was anything useful there for the other article. It was only 3 sentences long. I dumped the content to User:Phr/Sandbox so that you can see if there was anything worth using. If not, just simply create the redirect. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Phr 15:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect I doubt it will be harmful to remake the page as a redirect. does not appear to need a merge though per above. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

John Law (artistic pioneer)

Can the article on John Law the artist please be undeleted? I was not the original creator but I made some contributions to the page because I thought it was an important subject. The admin harro5 did a speedy deletion based on A7 (not significant). John Law was a very influential member of the Suicide Club, the Cacophany Society, and the early formation of the Burning Man (an event attended by over 30,000 people last year). He has also authored at least one book that I know of. Not everyone may agree with his theories on culture and art but they are undeniably significant and, important to wikipedia, they were foundamental concepts for several movements which do have thier own pages in Wikipedia. At a minimum can we have a "not so speedy" deletion? Thank you! kanoa 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I think the information that was there is really unusable. It's probably better if you just start a brand-new page on him at John Law (artist) that establishes his notability on the basis of cited, verifiable, reliable sources. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. This was John Law (artistic pioneer) (a POV title if ever I saw one), the content was uncited, the tone was hagiographic and the subject is of questionable notability (see [3]). If you want to try again with verifiable citations from non-trivial reliable sources do feel free, but any AfD on the content as speedied (twice) is going to be met by a chorus of "speedy delete" since there is no evidence of meeting the notability guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (I corrected the heading to point to the proper article), valid speedy, per JzG. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion If nothing else, the article title makes any claim of NPOV suspect. Feel free to write a WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV article anew. Xoloz 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Please let us look and judge for ourselves? Is that possible? I may be inspired to write a robust article if I can review some of the material, and use that as a base to start a search. The title seems unusual but i simply fail to see POV in it. Shouldnt it just be John (insert initial) Law with a link from a disambiguation page? thnaks for some consideration,moza 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Write new article I think he's notable, and that a real, verifiable article could be written about him. The previous articles, though, were rightly deleted as not asserting notability, being close to nonsense ("Inhabiter of clock towers. Famed spelunker, drunken Santa, survival researcher, bridge summiter and billboard connoisseur."), and having severe verifiability problems ("...artistic movements that remain underground and quasi legal and therefor can not be named."). In summary, I have no objection to a real article being written, but have a strong objection to the previous content being undeleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Starting over from scratch will give the article a better chance of becoming encyclopedic. --FloNight ^talk 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Jzg. Couldn't have said it better myself. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jainism and Judaism

This was deleted through the Prod process on the 1st April 2006. However it had previously survived an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jainism and Judaism). Can prod "win" over AfD in that way?

The other issue is that are 6 Jainism and Xism articles. Some consistency would be good - all are linked from Jainism. (However, I should report that the 5 surviving Jainism and Xism articles score in total 1 Neturality dispute, 4 Cleanup, 1 wikify and 1 please expand. Clearly some work is required).

Part of the AfD discussion was a suggestion to merge all these articles into Jainism and world religions. Unfortunately nobody stepped forward after the AfD vote to edit boldly. (No I'm not volunteering, lack of knowledge and lack of interest in the subject).

What a mess! Where do we go from here? I think that a Deletion review for Jainism and Judaism might be the right place to start from.

Cje 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say a PROD that's six months after an AFD that was far from a resounding keep (not many people discussed it, and those who did were mostly inclined to merge it and its siblings into a single article comparing Jainism with other world religions) is legitimate. If anyone had really cared about keeping it, the PROD tag would have been removed. Keep deleted. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Angr. If no one who had the article on their watchlist cared enough to remove the prod tag, then let the article stay deleted. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid PROD process. It's not a matter of whether PROD has precedence over AFD: it's the fact that PROD is the latest result. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• If a PROD is challenged, it is undeleted as per WP:PROD#Relation to other processes. Thusly. It's a matter for a new AfD. -Splash^talk 16:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD, very well, I guess I'm not fully versed in the PROD process. :-P --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with Angr. AFD decisions are not permanent. Articles can always be renominated and are not limited to only subsequent AFDs. Note: I am interpreting Cje's question to be a theoretical one and not a specific challenge to the deletion of this article. If he/she clarifies the nomination and makes this a clear challenge to the deletion of this particular article, then it should be relisted. Rossami (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Splash PROD is still undergoing a live test run, folks... it's a marvelous thing, but rough spots are still subject to rapid review. Any good-faith dispute is sufficient to restore for AfD. Unlike Rossami, I do read the nomination as requesting overturn -- "what a mess!" is not a theoretical-framing statement, in my view, but reflects distress at the result. Xoloz 20:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist I guess, but merging seems like a much better solution in the end. Just zis Guy you know? 21:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD per Splash. Thatcher131 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Splash and Xoloz. —Encephalon 02:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article. The question looks relatively simple to me. Prodding an article that has previously survived AfD is specifically disallowed by Wp:prod under the heading "What this process is Not for". The applicable phrase is the following: if an article has already been through AfD and the consensus was to keep (or there was no consensus), then objections to its deletion have already been raised. Prod can not override a previous AfD. -- JJay 01:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me try and clarify why I opened this request. I came across Jainism and Sikhism on the list of unwikified articles and started digging a little. I found 4 related articles Jainism and Hinduism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam, in various states of repair, but a deleted "Jainism and Judaism". Checking the logs I found that this had been through prod, but that there had been a previous AfD and survived - though with a consensus that merging all 6 articles was the best way to go. I would agree with that consensus. At this point my gut reaction was something has gone wrong here, because:

• The general topic of Jainism and world religions seems notable and a good subject for an article
• There was a consensus (from AfD) that the articles should be merged.
• The deletion of the Judaism article means we can't merge.
• Consistency is good! Either keep all 6 articles (though merged) or delete all 6.
• An important topic, but there seems to be no subject expert who's willing to do the merge, then edit it until we get a good article.
• Aggh!! (I wish I'd written that, instead of "what a mess")

I've been around Wikipedia for a while now, but have generally worked away quietly wikifying dead end articles, so I'm not as familiar with details of processes as most of the contributors to this discussion are. But it did seem to me that the situation I describe above was not the intention of Prod.

So I made the request as both a genuine request that the article be undeleted (so "someone" can merge it), and to flag a possible general process issue. If this is the only time that Prod and AfD come into apparent conflict, then let's forget the "theoretical question" and all get back to editing the encylopedia. However, if such situations are likely to be repeated in the future then getting some consensus on ground rules would be useful.

I would like to emphasise that I am not alleging bad faith on anyone's part. I came across a small problem, reported it in the most appropriate forum I could think of, and a sensible discussion resulted. That's wikipedia working well. If my "what a mess" cri de coeur sounded critical, then I apologise for a poor choice of words.

Now I see that Jainism and Judaism article is back. I've tagged all 6 articles for merge into clean them up to the best of my ability. I will almost certainly immeditiately tag it as needing cleanup and/or an expert help because I have no knowledge in this area!

Cje 10:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I attempted the merge, but it's not working. I've proposed AfD and attempted to clean up as much as possible. Thanks to all for patience. Cje 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I just want to weigh in as the PRODder. It was a mistake - had I read the history closely and seen that it was through AfD before, I would not have prodded it, even though I would have given it a strong delete if I had been part of the original AfD. My apologies. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 05:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

5 April 2006

Grophland

Deleted as being non-notable (discussion here), but there are a number of other similar articles linked from Digital_pet about games no more or less notable. In fact the Digital_pet article created a stub for Grophland which I then expanded, so if Grophland is to be removed then shouldn't they all be? No suggestion that the article was not neutral, better to fix it than delete it if it was surely. Hituro 18:01, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

• Endorse Deletion Valid Afd. The off shoot pets seem to vary in notablity some have long articles, and others just one line stubs. Might be better to merge the small pets back together into the main article under "Minor Pets", unless they are strong (notable) enough to survive in the wild by themselves. MartinRe 17:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• I thought the criterion was not supposed to be the importance of the topic of the article but the validity of the article itself. Why is a complete article on a site with fewer users less valid than one on a site with a greater number of users if both articles follow the guidelines? Hituro 20:04, 5 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Despite some concerns, notability has long been a consideration in AfDs, consistent with WP:NOT a general knowledgebase. See Wikipedia:Notability Xoloz 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link, I wish that had been more clear before I expended the hour or so writing the article! As it says on that page, I obviously thought it was worth listing. Hituro 21:25, 5 April 2006 (GMT)
    • Oh dear...sorry about that! If you'd like to have the text back for your own purposes, I'm sure any admin will send it to your userspace for you, as long as you promise not to repost it elsewhere on WP. Xoloz 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per MartinRe; however, I see no problem with an independent redirect to the digital pet article if subject is mentioned there. Such a choice at individual editor's discretion, of course. Xoloz 19:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD is valid; a mention on the Digital pet article might well deserve an external link instead of an internal link. Fetofs ^Hello! 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well it seems strange to have all these pages saying "this is a stub, please expand it" and then remove any page that's added because it's not important enough. The stubs create the expectation that there ought to be an article, and make wikipedia look incomplete because they are not there. In fact someone else had expanded the stud, and it was scheduled to be removed because it wasn't complete enough, so I completed it, and it gets deleted for not being important enough. Shouldn't the stubs and links be removed as well? That should be a general principle in fact. Hituro 7:59, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

• These are two separate issues. But you are right that people should not create stubs on subjects which are not actually important enough to have an article at all. I'd say that creating an article on a subject where you can't be bothered to give at least the basic context and claims to notability is a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - the argument that because some trivial articles exist no trivial subject may be deleted has never been persuasive. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. If other articles of similar notability also exist, perhaps they should be AfDed as well. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

List of people compared to Bob Dylan

AfD discussion here [4], with 4 keeps, 1 conditional keep, 7 deletes, and 1 merge (to Bob Dylan. Closing admin originally closed as delete, then decided to merge. That's the worst possible outcome; the AfD centered on whether the content was worthwhile -- if it wasn't, adding it (even in an abbreviated version) to another article is just sweeping the dirt under the rug. I think the Afd should have been closed as no consensus, and the article therefore kept; but deletion wouldn't bother me much either. Monicasdude 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Merge Topics can be worthwile, yet not notable enough to justify a separate article. Keep arguments for verifibilty were good, yet delete point that list of musicans that this could encompass could be large was also valid. A merge as per the last comment seems a sensible compromise, as it is a usful subtopic, but in a main article it will be pruned down to notable comparasions. MartinRe 15:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• The article has been moved to List of people likened to Bob Dylan and its redirect deleted. So the history is preserved, and the merge has, I presume, been carried out, since this new title is a redirect to [[Bob Dylan[[. -Splash^talk 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• That article is horrible. Seriously. Listcruft of the worst kind - an uncited list of all the people who someone (of no known authority) once referred to as the Bob Dylan of foo - what the hell is that doing in an encyclopaedia? I despair. This is a classic case for a category: artists inspired by Bob Dylan, where article editors can debate the extent of influence so only the meaningful and unambiguous get added. Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken here. Only cited entries are left in the list. `'mikka (t) 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Endorse DeleteJust cause it's cited doesn't mean it belongs in it's own list. Horrible list cruft as per JzG. ⇒ SWATJester <sup>Ready</sup> Aim <sub>Fire!</sub> 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse any kind of preservation of verifiable content about notable persons. `'mikka (t) 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, nothing of the content viewed as invalid by those recommending deletion was merged. If you see what the person proposing a merge said, he meant merging the information on artists Bob Dylan was compared to in his early days, which is verifiable and definitely notable. The other content was not merged, but is available in the page history. Only the redirect was deleted, although I can't see why I didn't just fix the double redirect anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, in the strictest sense, an AfD only discusses whether the content is to be kept or deleted. Once an article is closed as not deleted, the content may be merged without a vote if necessary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (kind of: it was a "no consensus" in my eyes, and the merger was a post-closing unilateral act which as Deathphoenix says anyone can do). --kingboyk 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have not yet looked at the article. I am about to look at it. If it turns out that most of the names of people "compared to Bob Dylan" are accompanied by good, verifiable source citations, with a quotation cited to show how the person is being compared to Bob Dylan, I will vote to relist. Here goes. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Take no action here The article has not been deleted, and is thus was not appropriate to bring here. It is currently a redirect to List of people likened to Bob Dylan. Virtually all of the names are accompanied by references. Spot checking of a couple shows that the references mostly do support the comparison. Clearly the appropriate action is to do nothing. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, it's something of a "Duelling Consensusses" situation now; the AfD was closed with a merger (abridged) into Bob Dylan. Editors on the main Dylan article (myself included) have been removing listcruft of all sorts from that article for some time, and after a bit of a dispute the consensus there seemed clearly to be to let this stand on its own. So, based on that consensus, I was WP:BOLD and undid the merger, since the AfD technically didn't end in deletion. One of the editors who feels very strongly about keeping the material then went over it for verifiability and made significant improvements. I think the current state is one folks should be able to live with as the least disputed and most likely to be stable. Monicasdude 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion though open to merge It it's not useable as an article in itself but if it were trimmed into a list of purely notable people who have been compared to him then it would make a good merge. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal speedy deleted and even blocked by NicholasTurnbull. Sheer censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCZenz (talk • contribs) at 02:29, 2006 April 5 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a project where some are entitled to censor those they disagree with. No rule allows deleting valuable content from others' user space. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User space is explicitly given to us for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. Please explain how this was valuable content - that is, how it would have contributed to the advancement of the encyclopedia. It appears to be merely a pair politically motivated userbox templates. At first glance, they do appear to be exactly the kind of "divisive and inflammatory" templates which the new speedy-deletion criterion was created to address. Rossami (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The speedy-deletion criterion for divisive and inflammatory user boxes is for user box templates, not for the user subpages. There are userboxes in the main space endorsing parties that are accused of having lead a war of aggression, how should asking for a trial be more inflammatory than that? Picking opinions you do not like and delete them is censorship. I am completely ok if all user boxes are deleted, but keeping some and removing others even from the user space is obscene. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 06:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Userboxes bore me but even I'd've deleted that one if I came across it. If there are similarly unnecessary userboxes around, tag them for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on MfD. They've already been restored because T1 does not apply, as they are in userspace and not templatespace. Also, none of the endorsements above seem to address the deletion, rather focusing on opinion about userboxes. DRV is not *fD. My opinion? Delete 'em. But they can't be speedied under T1, sorry. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted User opinion is fine, but tendentious phrasing and resource hogging (loading up 20 full-sized graphics just to make a not very original point) is out of line. I'd have no problem with "This user opposed the Iraq war" or "This user believes the Iraq war was an illegal invasion" in the usual format. We've already been through the discussion about images vs text in userboxes. ProhibitOnions 12:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • None of the pictures was loaded up by me, they are all used on the people's article pages. The pages have been recreated as there was clearly no legitimation to delete them, and all those who set their personal preferences higher than wiki policy by supporting the deletion here set a bad light on themselves. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Copyrighted pictures can be eligible for the "fair use" exemption based on context. They can be legal in one context and not in another. For the most part, use in articles qualifies for the "educational use" clause. User-space does not qualify for that clause. The fact that the pictures were loaded by someone else and are in use appropriately in the article-space has no real relevance to whether or not they are allowable under copyright laws in the user-space. Regardless of how the rest of this discussion turns out, please replace all the copyvio pictures with public domain versions. Let's keep this debate focused on a single issue, please. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• For the first one (the one with all the pictures): Keep deleted. It's a userspace page using non-free images. Clearly against WP copyright policy. For the second one (just text): List on MfD per BorgHunter. Powers 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely the copyvio should be resolved by either deleting the image or removing the reference? If an article contains a non-free image, that article would not be deleted for the crimes of its contained image, so why should it be different in userspace? MartinRe 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, it probably should. However, the page is completely useless without the images. I tried to remove the images and all it left was a contextless assertion talking about "these people" without any indication of who they were. I tried replacing the images with names but I don't know who they all are. =) Powers 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the fair use images. The ones I left are valid in userspace. Not all of them were fair use. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on MfD WP:NOT is not a valid reason under WP:CSD, and it should not be allowed to become a de facto one, which it will, if incorrectly speeding is allowed to be justified by WP:NOT or WP:SNOW. DRV is about process, not content, and this was not a valid speedy, so should be relisted. MartinRe 14:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletion clearly violated policy. Shame on those who use deletion powers to censor opinions they do not agree with. De mortuis... 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There is no reason to censor that user page. Raphael1 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely right. But he doesn't need a template to express his opinion. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and block the troll again. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Troll"? I would assume good faith here. He seems to be acting in good faith but has very strong opinions. "Again"? His block log is empty. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Tony Sidaway, you are incivil. Wikipedia policy is no personal attacks. You cannot block someone again who has never been blocked. De mortuis... 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't get to accuse admins of who are trying to keep Wikipedia an encyclopaedia of censorship and then complain about personal attacks, sorry. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • He was singled out and three of his boxes were deleted, even from his user space and ignoring a decision that had already been made. That is censorship and bullying, and asking to block someone again who has never been blocked is throwing mud on him in order to make him look bad. You should apologize. De mortuis... 15:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • No. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies to User:ROGNNTUDJUU! for my ill-informed and inexcusable personal attack. I have not changed my opinion on the gross inappropriateness of the items concerned. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and for one to mess with Deletion Review because someone has a different political stance is to prove how little one's opinion should hold in such a naturally unpolitically-biased discussion. Chris M. 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, or keep deleting. Find somewhere else to posture. Wikipedia may be free and tolerant, but it is not for soapboxing. And also observe that the editor has reinserted images that have plainly incorrect copyright status. You don't rely on the tag, since the tag can be wrong. -Splash^talk 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • All images have been looked at for copyright status. If you have any issues, bring it up, but that has nothing to do with deletion. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Disruptive use of userspace to circumvent T1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not "circumventing t1", this is what wikipedia policy advises people to do: keep controversial opinions to their user space. There is no way you can censor that. De mortuis... 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes there is, actually. Userspace is not sacred, and does not 'belong' to the user whose name heads it. Wide latitude is granted, but not infinite latitude, particularly when it is being used to circumvent T1 as Sjakkalle observes. -Splash^talk 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The rule currently is that users are even encouraged to move controversial boxes to the user space. There is npo legitimation to remove anything there, and T1 does not apply. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and strongly encourage the new users here to read up on policy. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It is important for me to say first that WP:NOT truly is NOT a CSD, as suggested above, and the deletions were improper. However, given my long experience at MfD, I can't see such soapboxery from a new user standing any chance at that forum, so I will follow the suggestion of WP:SNOW in this case. Xoloz 16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I also agree that it would probably fail MfD, but if SNOW is used to justify invalid speedies, then WP:NOT becomes a de facto CSD criteria, which I believe is important not to happen. MartinRe 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, and your concern is a valid one; however, a userpage of a "newbie with an apparent agenda" is, in my view, probably the worst possible case on which to make such a stand for due process. If this matter concerned any other type of page, or if the editor had a record of a few constructive edits, I'd be right with you. Truth is, though, such userpages routinely show up on MfD for 5-7 days, thanks to the backlog, get three or so delete votes without much discussion, and are deleted with little fuss. The opinions expressed here constitute about 100 times more consideration than such a page usually merits, so I'm comfortable it has had more than a fair hearing. Xoloz 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm a great believer in consistancy in process, so in some ways a case like this is the best one to point it out. Wasn't one of the pivotol free speech cases in the US decided when the speech was "distasteful" to many? If WP:NOT is not a CSD, then it should apply in all cases, and not "WP:NOT is NOT a CSD (except in 'bad' cases)" Ouch, my head hurts with all the NOT is not confusion :) Regards, MartinRe 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply posted at Martin's talk, since I sense a kindred spirit, and we may be chatting about this for a while. :) Xoloz 18:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Query CSD T1 allows speedy deletion only of divisive templates. But at what point does a user subpage (which may be transcluded) become a template? Transcluded once? Transcluded by someone other than the user? (with or without the explicit permission of the user?) Transcluded widely with the clear intention that it was designed to be used that way? To me, only the last option would pass the duck test to class it as a template, and a potentially valid deletion under CSD T1. However, this subpage has very few (three if I remember) references, so doesn't justify calling it a template in my view. And if it ain't a template, it can't be deleted under CSD T1. MartinRe 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no rule whatsoever that allows deletion of userfied boxes because you disagree with them. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically: "User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." jacoplane 16:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and delete the rest of the userspace documents in addition. Don't assist in the goals of the encyclopedia, aren't productive and isn't what this site is about at all. Why not use a Myspace account..? -Zero^Talk 16:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• The user has still not answered my original question. How do these two pages contribute to the creation of the encyclopedia? Without such explanation, this appears to be a misuse of userspace. My position is slowly hardening to delete. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatic keep deleted: I've never been a part of userbox partisanship, but these are such a blatant violation of our goals here as an encyclopedia that no other solution makes sense. T1 is to be used with caution, especially where disputed, but this kind of textbook case where a page has been created and recreated for the sole purpose of divisiveness and deliberate inflammation is exactly what it's there for. I say recreated because this is also that: a recreation of deleted content from the template namespace (see Special:Undelete/Template:User_against_Iraq_war_of_aggression and Special:Undelete/Template:User_GOP_criminal), and notice now that between the template and userspace recreation, this usr has now recreated it seven times each. I'm going to go redelete them and warn him. Dmcdevit·t 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Moving userboxes to user space if there is controversy about them in main template space is exactly what the current policy encourages to do, and other users motivated him to do so. You are acting out of process and should be warned yourself. De mortuis... 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia and these have nothing to do with that. Rx StrangeLove 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Contributes nothing to the building of an encyclopedia, which anything in userspace is supposed to do. -M^ask 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Pretty much everything's been said. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per above. I shall restrain myself from saying anything more lest I beat WP:CIVIL into a bloody pulp. Lord Bob 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, pretty much nothing left to say that hasn't been said. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: While archiving the talk page for WP:CSD, I found this edit by ROGNNTUDJUU!. It appears to be a rejection of the use of userspace to circumvent the deletion of divisive templates. I am confused by the apparent inconsistency with the sentiments expressed above. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• To be fair, that was way back on March 5, apparently his third whole day editing here. Evidently, his position has evolved and changed a lot in the last few weeks. Nhprman 00:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anti-american propaganda. Unfortunately, it's turning into such more and more. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. These do not help the encyclopedia at all, and one of them is potentially libellous, which should ask for nuking off the database. Also, if Tony and Splash agree on deleting something, it must be really horrible. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Deletion - This is a divisive political userbox designed to provoke debate, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The creator of the box has reverted admins' deletion several times, and has rebuffed numerous friendly attempts to explain WP policies. Side note: Deleting all political- and belief-themed boxes would end this foolish game, and not just in this case. Nhprman 00:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote one: administrator Mike_Rosoft had created the pages in order to move them from the main space. As it is not allowed at all to delete user subpages because you do not like the opinions expressed on them he unblocked the pages after they had been deleted and unblocked. The first admin who had deleted gave in. Now another one deleted. Sidenote two: I agree with your sidenote. But then go ahead and do not single out certain ones. De mortuis... 01:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. No part of writing an encyclopaedia. David | Talk 09:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• The speedy deletion is invalid; the page doesn't meet the criteria, because:
  1. These pages are not templates, so speedy deletion criteria for templates do not apply;
  2. Speedy deletion of a page doesn't automatically make any its re-creation a speedy candidate, it must meet speedy deletion criteria by itself; and
  3. Content which has been moved to user space (or re-created there) is excluded from being a candidate for speedy deletion as a re-post.

Undelete, candidates for speedy undeletion. Please bring it to WP:MFD if you must. - Mike Rosoft 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the new evidence, do not bother with undeletion unless a legitimate user requests it. - Mike Rosoft 08:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the argument that user space is for "encyclopedic content" is specious. There is not one bit of encyclopedic content at all in anyone's user space. Not yours, not mine, not Jimbo's, no one's. User space is for information about the user. Nothing that anyone has to say about themselves has any bearing on the encyclopedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose decision - Undelete - Userspace is Users space. Do not remove from there. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong bad endorse deletion for great justice per Jacoplane's logic. Netscott 11:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anti-anyone propaganda. --kingboyk 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Also please note that ROGNNTUDJUU has been permabanned as a sockpuppet of De mortuis... per WP:ANI. Thatcher131 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I find there is a lot of heat here, but little light. What this discussion needs is pointers to the original discussion(s) that occurred prior to when the fiels were first removed. What, if any, warnings were given? What, exactly, were the criteria used to justify the deletion?
  • Up above, IIUC, it is stated that files linked to images, uploaded by others, and that linkage was (may have been?) a violation of the liscensing under which those images were uploaded. The argument That sounds fishy to me. Assuming an image he found elsewhere on the wikipedia could be re-used in his user space sounds like an honest mistake. What if any warnings were given to him?
    • User:Rossami wrote: "For the most part, use(of images) in articles qualifies for the "educational use" clause. User-space does not qualify for that clause." I hope Rossami, or someone else can explain this comment. Rossami also wrote: "User space is explicitly given to us for the purpose of building the encyclopedia" -- I find these two positions inconsistent. If user space is given to us for building the encyclopedia, then using ROGNN..'s images on his personal page should be assumed to be for educational use. Now maybe ROGNN..'s use somehow disqualified it for educational use. Fine. Where is the warning? -- Geo Swan 14:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • This is a bit of a tangent from the core discussion so I've attempted to answer the question on your user page. As for the warning, it's right at the bottom of every edit screen. "Content must not violate any copyright and ..." Rossami (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse all such deletions WP:NOT etc --Doc ^ask? 19:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per WP:NOT as above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Buxton University

I created this article because a anon. user was removing it from List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. However, it was brought to my attention that it was deleted over a year ago. Yet, it seems that it was deleted as spam/ad/unverifible. My sources are two state governments and three news agencies.

Moreover, the "school's website" is instantdegrees.com and attempts to "intimidate" (as a news report noted) anyone who makes the connection between instantdegrees.com and Buxton. Hence, I think it is important to "undelete" and it is notable enough. "Instantdegrees.com" gets almost 5,000 hits and "buxton university" gets only 700. However, since this fraud has been reported in various government and news groups I think it is worthy of wikipedia inclusion. Arbusto 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Allow re-creation. Call it a consumer service. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation and recommend that a redirect be set up from Instantdegree.com to Buxton. JoshuaZ 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I think there are issues here with the validity of this for an article. Instantdegrees.com has an alexa of close to 300,000 [5], which hardly seems very prominent. Buxton is largely unknown and gets almost no google hits [6]- and the hits it does get are often things like William Buxton, University of London. The previous AfD raised serious questions about verifiability that look still to be valid- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buxton_University. The article as it stands includes five lines that state and restate how Buxton is not accredited, followed by a long description of news reports of people who have bought diplomas from the school. The question this raises is what else is there to say about this? If it is just a scam, and a fairly unknown scam at that, why do we need the article? While I don't support advertising, I also don't support doing an attack page on a non-entity. -- JJay 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think this article is very helpful and can be expanded (I wrote it minutes ago and your claiming it "can't"). If someone puts Buxton as their university on an job application or a webpage it would be nice for the largest online encyclopedia to have information about it. This is important since Buxton's name is similiar to a respected school. Also the comments in the AfD are not relevant because this article does not read like an unverfied ad. These are three news reports and two government sources. Arbusto 03:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Arbustoo seems to be our local expert on unaccredited institutions. If he thinks it is notable, I'm inclined to give him a few weeks to see what he can put together on it. JoshuaZ 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Here's a Washington Post article about fraud from 2004 surrounding a "Doctor" who's degree was from Buxton University.[7] In that article the Post wrote "repeated Web searches and several calls to overseas operators did not turn up a listing for a Buxton University." Wikipedia should include information about Buxton as a resource for those that want to know. Arbusto 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Allow re-creation. I was the one who nominated this on AfD last time, but I did so hesitantly after having attempted a rewrite. I would also like to ask for a history undelete of my version. I don't know if there was anything in it that may still be useful and lacking from Arbustoo's version, but it might be worth checking (I haven't kept an offline version). At some point in the future, I would like to see a consolidation of diploma mill articles, and more focus on the businesses and people behind the mills (which are often just temporary façades), but until then I think it is reasonable to collect the material in individual articles. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Wikipedia's articles on diploma mill articles also function as a service for consumers and as a counterweight to all the webspamming produced by the mills themselves. Tupsharru 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation. Current article is an encyclopaedic treatment of a degree mill with reasonable external coverage. Just zis Guy you know? 10:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation. Per Arbusto's 05:24, 5 April 2006 comment. If this was ONLY because people are looking for info on it, then I think that would be reason enough, because why isn't wikipedia the source of this info? But it's not just about that, it also has quite a few references. Chris M. 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation per Arbusto and JoshuaZ. Thryduulf 14:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete -- having got access to the text, this is useful information about three "fake" sources of degrees, which someone might well look up. The article also gives sources and substantiation, at leats enough to counter prima-facie pleas of innocence. -- Simon Cursitor 08:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow recreation although sadly anyone smart enough to find this on WP is probably not going to fall for an instant degree - I'd wager my MA in "Life Experience" on it. Eusebeus 10:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation and recommend a redirect per JoshuaZ, others. Samaritan 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• allow recreation for this please Yuckfoo 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

4 April 2006

Template:Good article

This template debate was closed and deleted by User:Raul654, but I don't think there is a consensus to delete. The final numerical results stand at 32 for delete, 28 for keep, and 4 for neutral/comment, so it should have been closed as no consensus. The differing opinions were all spread throughout the discussion, with little domination of keep or delete in any place. -- King of Hearts ^talk 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• IT was deleted because the template flatly violates policy, and the people who created it (and voted not to delete it) don't seem to care (and have not, in point of fact, even tried to offer an explination for why it doesn't violate policy) Raul654 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine, and I'm voting with you, too. Next time, though, I think it would be a good idea if you included that rationale in the closing. Xoloz 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Raul654, what policy are you referring to? Cedars 07:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Keeping metadata out of articles in order to make our database useful to re-users. Wikipedia "inside joke" and inside reference makes our database harder to use and less useful for reusers. Raul654 08:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/kd The only point of process with which I quibble is above. In discussions as extensive as this, with allegations of vote-stacking, a thorough examination of the arguments and their merits is absolutely necessary. Based on his remark, I have faith Raul did this. Making that reasoning explicit makes life easier for everyone, though. Xoloz 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (keep deleted) as per Raul. Template is supported neither by policy nor by WP:GA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I was going to protest because I mistakenly thought this was {{GA}}. Yes, this template goes against policy. Good articles already get a note on their talk pages. They don't need a pretty icon on the top right corner like featured articles do because they're not quite at featured article status yet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I've reviewed the text of the debate and I see charges of meatpuppetry together with some evidence of vote packing. While I personally favor vote packing, I permit admins discretion to discount it. John Reid 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, admin weighed the balance of the argument very well. It used the wrong picture in any case. If it ends up recreated, at least use the correct picture, i.e. Image:Autofellatio.jpg. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I missed the TfD, but agree with Raul's decision on this one. Number of "votes" isn't everything. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with Xoloz that Raul could have provided a rationale before doing something controversial, even if it's the right decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Admittedly I'm deferring to Raul's expertise here. But decorating articles with meta-content doesn't seem like a good idea. If not nipped in the bud, I foresee a rich growth of smiley-faces and bronze medallions and annoying little pastel boxes, and all the edit-warring accoutrements thereof... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Xoloz. JoshuaZ 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/Keep deleted per Xoloz --FloNight ^talk 17:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. I personally liked the template, but I agree with Dpbsmith. {{featured article}} was controversial, even though it is part of a stable area of Wikipedia policy; Good articles still needs some fine-tuning, so it is not appropiate to have an article-namespace template for it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• What Xoloz said. —Encephalon 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it dead. — Apr. 5, '06 [03:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Endorse deletetion Template was correctly deleted, but agree with Xoloz about a more explicit rationale in the closing statement. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, or if you're a huge fan of process, undelete it and then re-delete it per CSD:G4, because Template:Good, a similar template, was previously deleted through TFD. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, support reactivation of template when GA is approved, especially if approved soon. I disagree with Raul that supporters were not attentive to process. Myself and at least one other changed our votes to neutral from keep on reconsidering the merits of the process argument (clarified) and we both stated so. Further, I believe Raul has stated on GA discussions that he does not see a need for the GA project. Further, a number of supporters noted that process has not always been an issue with allowing very helpful tools to remain. That is a process argument. (I disagree with that point.) I wonder if many GA supporters know about the discussion here. (Since I'm fairly new here, a few months, and wonky in general but not wonked out on your policies, I'm going to post a note about this process on the GA talk page. Note: TheGrappler explained on my talk page that it is ok to post a comment on the GA project page and the distinct between that and vote stacking.) If the GA project is approved soon, I strongly propose that this reconsideration process be reversed and re-initiated with a clear call out to the GA project pages. I think the handling of this decision process could be much more transparent and supportive of dialog. I hope the approval of GA project and its utility has not been harmed by this process. --Vir 06:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps. To address the issue of principle of no meta-data in main namespace, or whatever: I do believe this was addressed in comments by supporters. This is another reason this issue needs further working out. I noted in my original comment on the template discussion that a GA template tag is useful both to readers and to reviewers (very very much so to the later). To expand: Savvy repeat readers and visitors will come to realize that many Wikipedia articles are quite incomplete. The GA tag (and perhaps a more elaborate set of evaluation tags) would be helpful to informed readers about extent of articles development. The GA tag would be especially helpful to teachers, students and researchers. It is not useless meta-data to readers unless you regard FA as such. Perhaps the "Good" label needs an explanation or alteration to something like "reviewed." Bottom line: The same logic that allows the Featured Article tag to be used, applies equally to GA. And both FA & GA tags should be used. --Vir 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn, restore template. Raul654's actions were very much out-of-line as there was clearly no consensus. Cedars 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with quibble - I believe Raul654 acted in good faith. The participants of WikiProject:Good articles were themselves very split on the issue. Given its relationship with policy, a template like this needs consensus to implement, not delete. However, if any such consensus does emerge (not limited to the WikiProject itself), I hope that this vote and this deletion review are not then used as "evidence" that it should be deleted again. Further, Raul made a decision based on policy, not on vote numbers: this is perfectly acceptable since TfD is not a vote. However, in sensitive cases like this, I believe an explanation of actions would be courteous and would have dealt with the accusation that Raul acted in bad faith. TheGrappler 12:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• 'Question motivation of deleter - I don't want to see the template restored, but wonder why Raul654 hasn't also deleted {{featured article}} if he is concerned just with applying policy. He has made it clear that he hates the GA idea and wants it deleted, and I would suggest he should have left it to someone impartial to close the discussion, which clearly was not in favour of deleting. Worldtraveller 17:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I fought tooth-and-nail against the FA template and was virtually alone in my belief [8] If someone nominated template:featured article for deletion, I'd vote to delete it in a heart-beat. Raul654 21:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

3 April 2006

Elliott Frankl

The article of Elliott Frankl was deleted by User:Thryduulf final vote was 8 to Keep and 8 to delete (although a few of the deletes appear to be sockpuppets and 5 of the 8 deleted votes were posted when the article was a stub and not complete. All the information is accurate and most but not all shows a source. The ONLY person that was attempting to say this information is false is user pm_shef who is the son of Alan Shefman, the candidate that is running against Frankl in the 2006 municipal election. Being from Vaughan myself I am sure pm_shef knows everything was true in the article but will do anything to get his fathers opponents article deleted, he did the same thing with a few other articles--Eyeonvaughan 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Speedy relist--Eyeonvaughan 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Without sources or references it is impossible for outsiders to fact check this article. It look to me to be original research Seabhcán 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment so take out the info. that does not currently have a source and relist with the info. that does have a source, I looked it over and most info had a source.--Eyeonvaughan 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/kd' All but two of the keep "votes" were clearly disqualifiable within standard closer's discretion. Additionally, the weights of the arguments and notability guidelines clearly support removal. This decision is right on merit, and consistent with process. Xoloz 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, excellent AfD closure, Thryduulff, this was definitely a tough one to close. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Most of the keep votes came from a contingent of Vaughanians (?) There seems to have been an effort lately to generate multiple articles on Vaughan politics, which can be adequately covered in the main Vaughan article provided reliable sources, NPOV, etc. Municipal officeholders rarely notable, candidates not.Thatcher131 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• The process was followed correctly. As has been pointed out repeatedly, unelected municipal candidates do not merit articles just for being candidates, per WP:BIO, and the keep contingent did not present a sufficiently compelling case that Frankl could be deemed notable for other reasons. And WP policy quite explicitly allows votes that appear to be agenda-based (e.g. people who've never edited Wikipedia before suddenly showing up with strong opinions in an AFD discussion, or votes with no rationale offered) to be excluded. AFD is not a raw numbers vote; it's a debate in which the numbers are a factor, but not in and of themselves the defining one. Plus the whole thing is quite clearly part of a determined campaign to skew WP coverage of local politics in Vaughan in favour of a political lobby group's decidedly POV agenda, which is not permitted under WP rules. And that's not even getting into the blatantly false accusations of bias and/or vandalism that the Vaughan Watch contingent continually makes against anybody who dares edit so much as a misplaced comma from their approved versions. Or the fact that they've already attempted to do an end run around this process by recreating the article twice today alone. Or the fact that they've actually resorted to citing Wikipedia mirrors as sources for the disputed assertions (per this edit). Endorse deletion; I've seen no compelling reason not to. Bearcat 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I have no ties to Vaughan (or Canada, for that matter). The simple fact of the matter is that this individual clearly fails WP:BIO. An examination of edit histories of this article and other afd'd articles related to Vaughan reveals obvious sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Having lived there, I do have ties to the "City above Toronto". I still think this artricle should stay deleted. I'd think the same for Toronto candidates, and indeed, any municipal political candidates of similar prominence. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The Vaughan soap opera rolls on. · rodii · 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll go further. I ^{not really} think we should blackhole Vaughan--delete and protect all Vaughan-related pages, including user pages, until after this election, and hope if any of them are motivated to come back, that it's as constructive contributors rather than political warriors. · rodii · 21:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Bearcat. I'm not involved in the whole Vaughan debacle, but I have been keeping an eye on it. This is an election candidate, not a notable person. Despite vocal support from many editors who are very involved with Vaughan politics articles, there is little support for this kind of article. Closing admin could have relisted for a clearer consensus, but the decision was right. Mangojuice 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Relisting AfD or Redoing Article I agree with Mangojuice about the lack of consensus. It's a travesty that this article has been removed because of Pm_shef and his pal Bearcat's personal agenda. Sure they'll deny it; but Pm_shef's father Alan Shefman is Frankl's opponent and the incumbent councillor. This is his clever campaign to sabotage his opponents, and I'm disgusted that almost none of you are doing anything about it.
• The arbitration committee has ruled that people who are related to the subject in question cannot edit. All of these issues that are occurring are happening because Pm_shef and his partner Bearcat wish to delete portions of articles and indeed entire articles to suit there purposes. These edit wars start in order to revert Pm_shef's whitewashing. Finally, as has been cited, the article is very accurate. While not every portion of the article is cited by some objective source (can't be the newspaper articles, can't be the individual's website, according to Pm_shef and Bearcat) the article itself has 6 or 7 citations, much more than other articles. It meets wikipedia's standard. All of this talk of "no evidence" has been brought up by Pm_shef; he is not an objective source for research. Again, this article should be relisted on the AfD, and I'm hoping there is a consensus for that. VaughanWatch 11:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC) So again, let's relist the AfD and have a more reasoned debate.
  • I have no personal agenda in the matter except to ensure that Wikipedia's rules and standards are followed, and I have no personal relationship with pm_shef whatsoever. You are to retract both of those false claims immediately. It has nothing to do with wanting to sabotage anybody — exactly how many times am I going to have to tell you that I have no connection whatsoever to anybody remotely connected to Vaughan politics before you realize that I have no connection whatsoever to anybody remotely connected to Vaughan politics? And for the record, I did not overrule any verifiable sources in the article — there weren't any verifiable sources to overrule. You guys didn't even attempt to cite any sources until somebody hit on the clever but invalid ploy of citing Wikipedia mirrors as sources. You didn't cite any newspaper articles. You didn't cite his campaign website — I had to find his campaign site by myself on a Google search. And guess what - it doesn't even make some of the disputed claims. Bearcat 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is nth time that either VaughanWatch or Eyeonvaughan or one of their group has accused me of bias. Each time, I ask for proof, or even one single example of a biased edit that I've made. Each time, they aren't able to. Above, VaughanWatch accuses me of "Whitewashing" and starting the edit wars, yet all of my edits have been to the betterment of Wiki, none of been PoV, and none have been unverifiable, unlike the vast majority of the article in question. Furthermore, I have always admitted right off the bat that I'm Alan Shefman's son, that was never a secret, and still, I have always edited NPOV while enduring the Personal Attacks. I've sat through attacks on my character, on my charitable work, and through accusations that everything I do hear is biased. It's a shame that they make these accusations, dragging my name through the mud, without ever presenting a shred of proof. pm_shef 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as Xoloz said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. It's is not worth revisiting an article that doesn't even come close to meeting the verifiability policy. As nearly as I can tell very few revisions even attempt to cite sources, and the few that do use sources such as www.elliottfrankl.com . Dpbsmith (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. nn, due process. `'mikka (t) 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a better option than deleting it entirely. Frankl is more notable for his work in the sports world than in the political world. He was in the top 40 under 40, which is quite an achievement. He's the head of a sports marketing firm that he started as a teen, and an agent to many stars. He's the head of sponsorship for the International Hockey Hall of Fame http://www.ihhof.com/aboutContact.htm and an official agent for the NHL. So if the article can be redone, and the non-provable stuff omitted, that would be fine, if there's consensus. VaughanWatch 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You get one vote, not as many as you want. If you'd like to reformat one of your two comments in this discussion as a non-voting comment, that's fine, but you cannot have them counted as two separate votes. Bearcat 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The vote has been modified. VaughanWatch 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Again, to respond to Bearcat: the notion of defending Wikipedia's rules is commendable. But this defence is forceful, arbitrary, and assumes bad faith.
  You think you can remove opposition to your and Pm_shef's campaign by bullying your opponents. And you assume that the editors have bad faith - here's what you said recently: "I believe that you're citing it in an attempt to discredit Susan Kadis because of your personal agenda against her."
  If you're really interested in an objective encyclopedia, you'd stop being an accomplice to Pm_shef's personal agenda to a) glorify his allies (Susan Kadis, Mario Racco, Alan Shefman, Mario Ferri) and b) remove his opposition (Elliott Frankl, Yehuda Shahaf, Vaughan Watch). As long as Pm_shef is on his campaign, there will be a counter-campaign. As long as there is an unjust, unfair and corrupt use of power, there will be those opposed to it. VaughanWatch 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • FOR. THE. LAST. GODDAMNED. TIME.: I HAVE NO CAMPAIGN HERE EXCEPT TO ENSURE THAT WIKIPEDIA RULES ARE FOLLOWED. That means WP:BIO. It means WP:WEB. It means WP:NPA. It means WP:V. I do not know User:pm_shef, and am not participating in any agenda except enforcing the fucking rules. And I'm not assuming anything, either — you've already acted in bad faith by repeatedly making false accusations about other editors acting in a biased manner, in defiance of repeated good faith requests by multiple editors to discuss the issue in a civil and productive manner. I'm not enforcing the rules arbitrarily, either — if I have to keep after you guys with a stick, it's because you guys are the ones who keep breaking the rules. Bearcat 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So enforce the fucking rules Bearcat. Don't let Pm_shef get away with skirting your warnings. VaughanWatch 00:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There's nothing to enforce. He hasn't skirted anything. Bearcat 19:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Users reading the above may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan. Thryduulf 11:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Non-notable suburban municipal candidate, not verifiable. Most of the keep votes were from sockpuppets or people whose only edits have been on Vaughan-related pages and were quite rightly discounted by the closer (Thryduulff). Goes against consensus reached earlier after a number of AfDs that incumbent councillors should not have articles, nevermind unelected candidates. Bearcat is to be commended for his patience in attempting to deal with this mess. Luigizanasi 05:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC
  • This is patience to you? Bearcat clearly has lost any objective ability to manage this encyclopedia. VaughanWatch 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• What Sjakkalle said. —Encephalon 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Since Bearcat is so evidently eager to enforce the rules, will he finally enforce this one, from WP:NOT, under "Wikipedia is not a soapbox": Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so."? VaughanWatch 09:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I've pointed out to you before: I did address that rule with pm_shef. Unlike you guys when a rule breach was discussed with you, pm_shef responded respectfully and politely, and took the advice seriously and in good faith. Furthermore, unlike 3RR or NPA, it isn't a rule that one can be banned for violating — it's one where the limit of an administrator's authority in the matter is to remind the offending user that there's a rule. Bearcat 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid closing rational given with some suspect keep votes dicounted. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The only person discounting those votes is Pm_shef and his administrative assistant. If you disagree, you are labelled a "sockpuppet". VaughanWatch 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Everybody in this discussion has viewed the votes as discountable with the exception of those who have a vested interest in this article. It has nothing to do with what side of the debate they happened to support, and everything to do with WP:SOCK. And re: "administrative assistant", you have been advised more than once to can the personal attacks. They stop now. Bearcat 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted. Elected to national office? Notable. Runinng for local office? Not notable. Valid AfD decision, per policy and guidelines, no new evidence presented of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse relist with protection I am not involved in the disputes of the many articles involving people from Vaughan region, I contributed to article because, Frankl is very notable within the sports business industry his candidacy in the municipal election is irrelevant in terms of being notable enough for a article, despite the false claims that one wiki user keeps mentioning everything in the article in accurate including Frankl serving on the board of the International Hockey Hall of Fame. Frankl was listed on the International Hockey Hall of Fame article since he was elected in Nov. 2005 until one wiki user started vandalising the IHHOF article as well. This is the same wiki user that has been vandalising this article as well as many others. I wonder if it has anything to do with that this wiki user is the son of Frankl’s opponent in the municipal election?--JohnnyCanuck 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • All you guys needed to do was provide a link to a page (not a Wikipedia mirror) which stated that Frankl holds a position on the board of directors. Even his own campaign page doesn't say he holds a position on the board of directors — it just says he works with them. But no matter how many times you guys were asked to provide a source, all you could do was continually assert that the IHHOF just hadn't updated their web page yet. That's an unverifiable claim. Nobody asserted that the claim was false — but as it stands, it's unverifiable. If you want it included, show a source. Bearcat 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine. Remove the board of directors reference, and any other reference that isn't definitely verifiable. Would you and others agree to a shortened, 100% verifiable article on Elliott Frankl? And is that a consensus? VaughanWatch 23:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If it is also NPOV and verifiably proves he is notable enough for an article then yes it would be welcome. The main reason the article was deleted was because there was no verifiable evidence he was notable - read WP:BIO for what constitutes notability. Thryduulf 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. I agree, although I doubt very much that he would meet the WP:BIO criteria. I personally get fifteen times as many google hits (661) as Frankl (42), I have run for public office, I am a published author, and was recently quoted in a CBC news story, and have been on the board of a number of organizations that should have Wikipedia articles (which I do not intend to write given my personal involvement), but I don't think that any of that makes me notable enough to have a wikipedia article. What I would like to see is news stories or other verifiable evidence to show that he is notable in hockey circles. I haven't found any. So, Mr. DeBuono, instead of attacking Bearcat's integrity, you would be much better advised to devote your energies to finding evidence of Frankl's notability and presenting it here. Luigizanasi 01:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • If every unverifiable claim in the old article were removed, the only claim to notability in the article would be the fact that he's a candidate in the municipal council elections. And has been repeatedly pointed out, unelected candidates in municipal council elections are not notable per WP:BIO. Bearcat 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Bearcat responded to the wiki statement "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so," by writing: "...unlike 3RR or NPA, it isn't a rule that one can be banned for violating — it's one where the limit of an administrator's authority in the matter is to remind the offending user that there's a rule."
  What's the point of having a rule if it's not enforced?
  And why did you write that you have a campaign to ensure wikipedia rules are followed, and said that "It means WP:BIO. It means WP:WEB. It means WP:NPA. It means WP:V." and not *enforce* NPA in Pm_shef's case? VaughanWatch 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not aware that user:Pm shef has made any personal attacks. If you have evidence that he has then I suggest you present it as part of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan. Thryduulf 23:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf that's exactly the point. Pm_shef doesn't need to make an actual edit that is serving his purposes. And he doesn't need to make personal attacks. The wiki policy says the he cannot EDIT any article that he is personally involved in. He was been warned about this by user:Bearcat. But Bearcat hasn't gone far enough. How this boy can have the audacity of both discrediting and removing his father's opposition from what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia is disgusting. Worst of all are those who are complicit. VaughanWatch 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Nobody is complicit in anything. I'd be the first one to editblock pm_shef if he crossed the line, trust me. But as things stand, Frankl doesn't belong in a neutral encyclopedia until you guys can actually provide sources to verify that he meets the WP:BIO criteria of notability. If you had put even a fraction as much energy into finding legitimate sources for the article as you've been putting into whining about the family connections of an editor who hasn't committed any bannable offenses, the article might well have been keepable — but no, instead you launched a POV edit war over unverifiable claims that even Frankl's own campaign website doesn't make. Needless to say, that doesn't make me terribly inclined to trust your judgment. Bearcat 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • First off, you'll notice that I have not edited anything related to Frankl's candidacy is the election, only things related to your other claims that are unverifiable. Furthermore, if I were to be banned for editing things that I have personal involvement in, then VaughanWatch would have to be also, as his site makes him inherently involved. The fact is though, this is another example of you guys making completely baseless accusations against me with no proof! pm_shef 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Re-doing Article As Thryduulf, Luigizanasi, and VaughanWatch have said, the article should be re-done so that it meets WP:BIO. Frankl, and his company particularly, have been mentioned in many hockey-related sites, and this is his real claim to notability. A google search for his company, Sports Rep Marketing, shows 227 hits. His company is mentioned among the great suppliers at CrossOff International's site, along with Wayne Gretzky Authentic, Jordana Sports International Inc and Great North Road (Bobby Orr). Other awards for the company can be found at these admittedly biased sites: 1 and 2. So if anyone wants to volunteer to do this, and make a verfiable article, I suggest we do it. Skycloud 02:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that User:Skycloud is a suspected Sockpuppet of User:Leotardo. pm_shef 03:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That is an argument for creating an article on Sports Rep Marketing, not on Frankl. Note that it would then need to meet the criteria established in Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) aka WP:CORP. Luigizanasi 04:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, to clarify, I did not say or imply that the article should be redone. I said I want to see evidence of his notability presented in this current deletion review discussion, right here. None has been presented yet. Until I see verifiable evidence of notability other than his candidacy in the present discussion, my vote for keeping the article deleted stands. Luigizanasi 05:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. With respect, that Google search brings up 64 unique hits for me, which is, like, less than my dog. · rodii · 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am my own personal benchmark for non-notability, and even I get several thousand Google hits. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Luigizanasi. --Ardenn 03:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Page has been marred by vandalism of Pm_shef. Keep it and expand. Poche1 18:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Process Comment: The standard format for these discussions is indented bullets. Please try to stick to that format. It makes following the discussions (and later, closing them) much easier if we can stick to the standard. I've tried to standardize this particular thread. If doing so changed the meaning of your comment, please correct it. Rossami (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Vaughan voters may or may not establish his notability in the fall. Samaritan 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Admin took arguments for deletion v. keep into consideration rather than a raw vote count. Determining concensus for closing was within admin's discretion. -maclean25 03:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not endorse deletion VaughanWatch 11:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Again: you have already cast a vote. You can post additional comments for discussion if need be, but you do not get a second vote. Bearcat 08:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Despite admin making a decision at the time, the decision was not reflective of the notability of the subject. Poche1 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• While you guys have continually asserted that there was some obvious notability criterion that he met but that everybody was failing to see except you, the reality is that a lot of editors in good standing evaluated the claims and legitimately decided that they didn't constitute sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO. DRV is not the place to refight that battle; DRV is about reviewing the process, not the content. Bearcat 08:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• The process was that an article about a successful, up-and-coming businessperson was picked off because of politics. VaughanWatch 11:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• ...up-and-coming.... Bzzt. So, if he's "up and coming", then how does he suddenly become notable enough for an article? --Calton | Talk 11:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this instead: a bunch of editors (possibly even all sockpuppets of one editor, although we won't know for sure until the checkuser results come in), with a vested interest in having their preferred city council candidate deemed more notable and important than the existing city council they had already targeted for deletion, posted an article which consisted almost entirely of unverifiable claims, acted in bad faith by making false accusations of vandalism and 3RR against reputable editors who made any edits whatsoever (even grammar corrections) to "their" article, seized on pm_shef's political connection to discredit the whole thing even after a bunch of disinterested administrators stepped in to mediate (even going so far as to make unsupportable accusations of political connections between pm_shef and those administrators), almost all got editblocked at least once for their inappropriate behaviour, and are still crying foul on political grounds even though virtually every last person who approached it from the objective, disinterested perspective of whether the subject met Wikipedia's objective criteria for inclusion or not considered the article an unqualified delete.

And you still haven't made a real case otherwise; you're still relying on the "because I said so" school of argument. And if you were genuinely concerned about objectivity, you wouldn't have favoured deleting the incumbent council in the first place...except that you've already revealed the applicable POV by claiming that it would be somehow neutral, objective and verifiable for Wikipedia to uncritically describe Vaughan council as the most corrupt city government in Canada.

In summary: a self-aggrandizing political lobby group is gaming the system in the hopes that come the fall, Vaughan voters will look at Wikipedia and decide to vote for Elliott Frankl because an objective encyclopedia considers him more important than any of the existing city council (none of whom have articles of their own). That's what it looks like from where I'm sitting. Bearcat 07:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment of new info. The IHHOF finally updated the directors on their website http://www.ihhof.com/aboutBoard.htm Frankl is infact listed as serving on the board of directors. Some of the delete votes were based on the false information that he wasn't on the board. --JohnnyCanuck 18:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I fail to see how being on a museum's board of directors qualifies an individual on notable. Given that precedent, shouldn't we have articles for all directors of all notable museums? Then maybe expand that to articles on all directors of all notable companies? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment You are missing the point, it was deleted based on the politically motivated false claims from one user which has now been proven to be false.--JohnnyCanuck 19:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment No, it was deleted because it failed (and still fails) WP:BIO notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Johnny: if you look at the AfD debate you'll find that the only delete vote that even might be related to pm_shef's assertion was pm_shef's. Frankl's page was deleted, largely, because municipal election candidates fall short of the WP:BIO guidelines. It wasn't whether or not he was provably on the IHHOF board of directors. Mangojuice 19:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment It proves that he is on the board, the accumulated accomplishments that are being proven one at a time after the vandalisn of one user that claimed everything in the article was false. How does this article not meet notability guidelines? There was a concensus that this article did meet the guidlines if everything was true, which it is, its just a matter of time to prove every little thing detail in the article--JohnnyCanuck 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You've said there was a "consensus," but could you tell me where you got that idea? I think it must have been from Eyeonvaughan's paragraph at the top of this listing, but it doesn't describe what actually happened in the AfD debate. The notability guideline that Elliott Frankl clearly didn't meet was from WP:BIO: "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature", which describes how successful a politician must be to be notable for their achievements as a politician. In practice, important municipal officeholders (in important municipalities) do often have articles, but their notability is not always agreed upon. Municipal election candidates clearly falls well short of this mark. Mangojuice 20:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In light of the IHHOF website's update, I'm willing to revisit the situation in good faith. I've copied the disputed text to User:JohnnyCanuck/Elliott Frankl for review and editing. Two cautions, however: firstly, this does not necessarily mean that the article will definitely be restored; once Johnny's done revising the article, a neutral administrator (not me, for instance) will review the situation and will still retain the right, if they so choose, to conclude that being on the board does not in and of itself constitute sufficient notability for WP inclusion. Secondly, I repeat that information posted to Wikipedia must be verifiable. It is not sufficient to state, as was done repeatedly in this debate, that the information was true but the organization just hadn't updated its website yet, because Wikipedia had no way to confirm that. WP cannot make the claim until we have objective third party confirmation, so I repeat that the process was handled correctly per the available information at the time. The fact that the website has been updated today does not automatically invalidate the fact that the claim was unverifiable yesterday. Bearcat 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews

Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews was deleted by User:Thryduulf. Final vote was 30 to Keep and 38 to Delete. Thryduulf discounted keep votes by new users using the arbitrary threshold of 10 edits. User also included 10 votes to merge in the delete vote. This is neither fair nor wikipedia policy.Seabhcán 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have recounted the vote and the correct figures are Keep:30, Delete:31, Merge:18 (included in Merge is several Merge and/or delete votes, which amount to the same thing) Seabhcán 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As noted by the closer, most of the "merge" "votes" called only for adding a line or two from the article to the Sheen page, not for preserving its substance, and are properly characterized as calling for removal of the long article. Monicasdude 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• As I explained in my summary, my final count was "38 delete, 18 keep, "18 merge". The 10 merge votes included in the delete and merge totals were: 1 "Delete or Transwiki to Wikiquote", 5 "Delete or merge" and 4 "Delete and merge", which are all votes to delete. I counted the 1 "Merge or keep" as both a keep and a merge. I did not count the 9 straight "merge" votes as delete or keep. Counting only straight delete, keep and merge votes gives 28 delete/17 keep/9 merge. I don't understand where your figure of 30 to keep comes from. Discounting votes made by anons and very new users is perfectly normal. I did not use a 10-edit threshold, that was what user:Mmx1 used in his unnoficial summary, which I did not refer to. Afd is not a vote, and as I also said in the summary "Many of the reasons given to delete focused on this article, whereas most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" - which doesn't explain why this article is notable enough." I stand by my decision. Thryduulf 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What you describe as 'unrelated' articles, I would describe as precedent.Seabhcán 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD (and indeed DRV) is not bound by precedent. Even if it were you would need to explain why the fact that another article was kept means this one should be. One of the cited articles was the one about Michael Jackson dangling his child over a balcony, which is completely different to an actor giving a series of interviews. This is like saying "there is an article about a fibreglass shark embeded in the roof of a house therefore there needs to be an article on the interview in the local paper about with the vicar's wife who beleives she was abducted by aliens". Thryduulf 16:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem with this process is that the accusation of "non-notable" is impossible to defend. Most of the 'delete' votes were based on notability. Google currently has 1.1 million sites mentioning this topic and 99 newspaper articles. The precedent was that the actions of a US actor may have a dedicated article and was not equilivant to equating sharks with vicars or aliens. It seems to me that there is a dedicated cabal of wikipedians who wish to delete any article which is negative to the US. This is infact being commented on outside of wikipedia, here, for example. I have also encountered this on Iraq related articles. It is a sad development. Seabhcán 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually it's more like 536 hits than a million (YMMV as google indexes settle). While googling for that I noticed we don't have the article Charlie Sheen says in an interview he has slept with 5,000 women (google). I mean as long as we are writing articles about individual interviews. Weregerbil 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • On a purely factual note, your calculation for google hits is false. When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based in principle on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected, not the entire number of hits. A rough (very rough) estimation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. Eusebeus 09:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The number of hits this supposedly "hot" news item gets from a Google News search of "Charlie Sheen" 9/11 is 99. So much for widespread media coverage.Ande B 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thryduulf, especially most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" Thatcher131 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, good analysis by Thryduulf. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd Many closers discount editors with fewer than 100 edits, a few discount those with fewer than 250 edits. Ten edit threshold is generous, consistent with practice. The AfD is perfectly valid; additionally, deletion is what the article merited, in my judgment. Note also that "merge/delete" votes are technically inconsistent, and can be considered void within closer's discretion. Xoloz 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and immediate undelete This series of interviews is historical for the 9/11 truth movement, people went out and gave a demostration of gratitude, Sheen is refered to as a hero, it is the result of almost 5 years of efforts on the part of the 9/11 truth movement to manage to get the issue to mainstream media in a repectable way, and it is seen as a major historical achievement! There was certanly no consensus for deleteing, and i most strongly object to deleting this accomplishment as non-notable, when every single source in the 9/11 truth movement is refering to it in joy! --Striver 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that deletion review is not about the content of the article, but about the process of deletion. Thryduulf 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Thryduulf stated that the keep voters did not present arguements for keeping this particular article, and that is blatantly inaccurate, there are plenty of arguements for the notability of this particular arguement, undelete now! --Striver 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny thing is, I read "every single source in the 9/11 truth movement is refering to it in joy" as "every single walled gardener is throwing rose petals like there's no tomorrow". But no matter how high they throw them those walls are still too high for anyone else to see, or care. Endorse deletion per above. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • We dont decide how important something is to ourselves, but how notable it is for the people involved in it. I can assure you that i view the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" as a totaly random and non-notable quote, but those in that field find it notable, in the same way do i consider most sport events as totaly non-notable walled gardens. By that same standard, this article is not only notable, but historic, to those millisons of people involved in it, and it is a blatand violations of the policies wikipedia has set to delete it.--Striver 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Thryduulf's sound analysis. -Dawson 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. 38-18-18 is absolutely not a consensus. When a consensus cannot be reached, Wikipedia is supposed to err on the side of inclusionism. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and treating it as one allows for the exclusion of information based on the fact that it supports an unpopular POV - which is exactly what I believe happened here. --Hyperbole 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. First, Thryduulf did not disclose his threshold, but it and his numbers are not the same as the unofficial figures I put up so do not conflate them with what I posted. I was erring on the safe side with the figure of 10 edits, having seen an admin close, counting 15 as the threshold: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/911_Eyewitness. From what Xoloz says, even that's fairly generous. --Mmx1 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Did not participate in the debate and have no opinion about the article but I really can't see any clear consensus here. -- JJay 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion The closing admin counted off the hordes of sockpuppets that came in to vote "keep". A very good thing, not bad. I am afraid that deletion review is again being used to try and save bad articles to promote certain POVs.--Jersey Devil 19:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disregarding likely sockpuppets was appropriate, but after that was done, the resulting AFD didn't even resemble a Wikipedia:Consensus or supermajority. Absent that, the policy is supposed to be to keep the page. Policy wasn't followed here. Sockpuppets aren't the issue. --Hyperbole 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't need a supermajority to close in favor of deletion...do us a favor and don't ever close out any Afd's if that your take on policy.--MONGO 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You absolutely do need a consesus or at *least* a supermajority to close in favor of deletion. Reread the appropriate policies, e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. When there is no consensus, a page is kept; supermajority can be substituted for consensus only when a discussion is large enough that consensus is not reasonably possible. --Hyperbole 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I will not argue that the vote constituted a supermajority though it could very well be made; this certainly falls within precedent as far as the percentages fall w.r.t. supermajorities for AFD. However, the outcome is not a vote. It is dependent on a "rough consensus" subject to common sense and the discretion of the closing admin. At the very least you must cede that excluding new and anon users to establish an accurate picture of the opinion of established wiki editors is fair practice, which completely throws off the "vote".--Mmx1 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The vote was 38-18-18 D-K-M by Thryduulf's count and 31-30-18 D-K-M by Seabhcan's. I do think that whether every single new user's opinion should have been completely discounted is a debatable point, but either way, neither of those counts imply a supermajority. Both are clearly no consensus. As general policy, if a significant number of Wikipedians want an article to stay, it should stay. Or, to quote the policy, "When in doubt, keep." --Hyperbole 01:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
            • AfD is not a vote. Thryduulf 10:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• The root article on this topic is now 101kB long. Yet every time a spin off article is created it is listed for deletion. This behaviour of certain users is to promote certain POVs. Seabhcán 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep deleted; I don't really see consensus but this needs to go nevertheless. Kotepho 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletetion absolutely. This is just one interview, neither noteworthy or notable. The article does not explain why it is notable. The fact that this interview occurred isn't even notable in the Charlie Sheen article, compared to when he has had to explain to the press and provide interviews about his involvement with Heidi Fleiss, his drug rehab, or anyone of the movies and TV productions he has been involved in. Thryduulf was right on about his interpretation of the vote.--MONGO 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that deletion review is not about the content of the article, but about the process of deletion. --Hyperbole 20:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Policy was followed and process was maintained. I probably should have speedied it when I first saw it.--MONGO 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Make that Strongly Endorse Deletion. It is a perfectly valid practice for the administrators to listen to the comments of contributors without being bound by the mere number of votes. One good argument beats ten bogus ones any day. I was one of those who said Delete or Clean up and Merge. That clearly means that my vote is intended to get rid of this article as a stand-alone article. From this point on I suppose I will simply say delete when given a choice to possibly salvage some small piece of an article. This article was a mess and had nothing notable about it. I'm rather tired of hearing unhappy posers attempting to pyschoanalyze deletion votes as being indicative of some underlying political purpose: analyze yourselves. I'm looking at this for editing purposes only and there is no good reason to keep this as a separate article. Wiki is not a collection of interview transcripts, particularly poor ones. Ande B 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Ande B. And Striver, please understand that in an AfD or a review of an AfD, the most unpersuasive thing you can do is make claims of censorship. JoshuaZ 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Interviews are rarely notable, and there is no compelling evidence that this goes against that trend. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• A whole website is dedicated to this event! How in Gods name can you call this as non-notable when people dedicate websites to it and go out giving demostrations of gratidude? There was nothing even close to consensus for delete, protocol is not followed! --Striver 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Groan, Striver please reread WP:N and WP:V. JoshuaZ 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The interview did happen, the audio and transcript are linked and the three CNN programs on the subject are also available for download and linked. Can you explain why you think this topic is not verifiable? Seabhcán 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Just because a topic is verifiable does not mean that it is notable. Ande B 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you agree the article is verifiable (and perhaps even verified?). Perhaps we can remove the above link to WP:V and its sly suggestion otherwise. Notibility is unprovable and completely in the eye of the POV beholder. Seabhcán 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't see any need for JoshuaZ to edit his post, nor do I interpret it as sly. Taken together, the two links show that mere verifiability is not sufficient to establish notability. Ande B 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is the proper interpretation of many of the merge votes, which called for a brief mention. Rhobite 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus was reached, either relist the piece on the AfDs, or per criteria, allow the piece to stay. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Thatcher131 above. -Will Beback 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not even close: to steal a line from the AFD discussionby Samir), "Must be laundry day. It explains the socks. And the soap." --Calton | Talk 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete per Striver. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Excellent analysis by the closer, clearly he had the big picture in mind and decided appropriately. I know my own Merge and Delete recommendation was certainly meant to fall within the Delete camp for this article, and I think the other commenters who recommended Merge in some form or fashion were likewise pretty clear as to their belief that this standalone article should go. --Krich (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Newsworthy is not the same as encyclopedic. There is just no encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in strongest possible terms. I love how the "9/11 truth" organization, which is a laugh all in itself, is trying to assert that everybody agrees with them that this is a major historical event. I don't agree with them, so your argument is fundamentally flawed. As for the deletion, I believe it was spot on, as mentioned by Krich. Kill this thing in the face. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment WP:SOCK says:

  It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

  Does the word "externally" mean outside Wikipedia only or does that paragraph apply to User_talk also? That happened in the original AfD as well as here: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] — Weregerbil 09:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is nonsense to suggest there was any wrong doing in this case. Striver was informing users who had voted to keep that there was a deletion review ongoing. Show me the rule that says that is not allowed. These kind of accusations are simply a distraction and an attempt to intimidate.Seabhcán 09:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoa, easy please! I am not attempting to "intimidate" anyone, I am asking whether the above-quoted policy applies here. So the answer is "no, it's fine to invite people of known opinions into AfDs and DRVs"? Thanks, I think I learned something new today! Weregerbil 09:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, you didn't. Learn something, that is: It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Also: ...internal spamming means cross-posting of messages to a large number of user talk pages, by Wikipedians, in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • We are not talking about a large number of post, nor does this count as advertising. The users contacted had already voted on this issue. They were contacted to inform them that there was a new vote. It can be no coinicidence that Weregerbil 'discovered' these edits right after User:Swatjester falsely accused Striver of Spamming [18]. Is there a smell of socks in the air or do you guys work in the same office? Seabhcán 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually it is a coincidence (isn't that special)! No, we do not work at the same office (I am currently at home and there is nobody else here; by his signature he appears to be in Iceland and I am in Finland) and as to sockpuppetry you are welcome to request a user check. If I had been sure the invitations were not cool (per Calton above) I would have mentioned it to Striver myself. Why on Earth would anyone create elaborate sockpuppets to say something like that on user talk? Weregerbil 10:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Funny how Striver "forgot" to inform those who voted delete that there was a DRV pending, isn't it? And that is what was wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 14:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. It would be acceptable to alert everyone who gave input to the deletion discussion that there was a DRV. To only give it to those who agree with you is completely unacceptable and I have trouble seeing it as an action in good faith. JoshuaZ 14:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Simply put: this was not closed improperly. Eusebeus 09:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admin acted correctly. David | Talk 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admins make judgement calls. No compelling case has been made that his judgement was unreasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per wknight94. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 and others above. --mtz206 23:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted per Thryduulf, MONGO, Krich, Rossami and Dpbsmith, who basically said all I would have said myself. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AFD to generate a clearer consensus. -- King of Hearts ^talk 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the fact that the AFD resulted in a clear delete decision, the article topic is junk in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Closing analysis of AfD discussion was correct IMO, although I think the article topic has merit for being in WP. No comment on the actual article content. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Per excellent analysis of closing admin -- Samir (the scope) 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Lack of clear consensus. The fact that some of the users may have registered recently doesn't really prove much unless you can establish they are sockpuppets. Nil Einne 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not true. It has always been policy that the closing admin may choose whether or not to count new users' participations in discussions. See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Alien 5 (rumoured movie)

Alien 5 (rumoured movie) was deleted by User:Tregoweth 23:25, 22 March 2006, for reason 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball'. Deletion contested as 'out of process'. I am the main author and contributor and was not given an opportunity to discuss/debate the deletion. As far as I am aware, the article was not tagged with the deletion notice (I check my watchlist every few days and examine all edits, and I never saw a notice). Wikipeon 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, article violates WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish people who quote it would understand our NOT policy. Crystal-balling is when the writer adds his/her own speculation about a possible future event (i.e. NO crystal ball is just a more precise version of NOR). Reporting the notable speculation of others is perfectly legitimate. To take an extreme case, one wouldn't for example to delete a decent article on the proposed Freedom Tower.
  • Oh, and overturn. Pcb21 Pete 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a big difference between an architectural site for which there has been a design competition and significant controversy, and a movie that isn't even listed in IMDB. Thatcher131 17:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I normally turn to upcomingmovies.com for this sort of thing (it's now been bought by Yahoo!). Yes, they're not actually going to make Alien 5, at least not any time soon, hence it's not on IMDb. HOWEVER there has been a lot of notable talk about continuing the series, which is why this is a valid topic. Pcb21 Pete 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comment, Pcb21. It's been a while since I looked at that section of WP:NOT. However, I think you're interpreting the crystal ball guideline a bit too strictly. WP:NOT says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." In that respect, what you say is correct, that we can report "the notable speculation of others...." However, WP:NOT also says: "Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." From what I understand, the fifth Aliens movie has little non-promotional information available yet. Despite that, though, since WP:NOT makes clear that unreleased movies are valid article topics, I'm going to have to change my vote. See below. Powers 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that line in WP:NOT is a classic example of policy page cruft/creep. Why pick on a particular case of a particular case (advertising in unreleased product) to mention in such a general place. The core principles here are Verifiability (which takes care of "crystal balls") and Neutrality (which takes care of advertising). I am glad you saw that and changed your vote. Pcb21 Pete 10:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but with some reservations. From Wikipeon's description, it sounds like it was speedied, but crystal ballism isn't a speedy criterion. I'd like to hear Tregoweth's side. HOWEVER: even if it was deleted out-of-process, there's absolutely no reason to restore the article and hold an AfD; per WP:BALLS, this article has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD, for precisely the reason given by Tregoweth. Powers 16:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you mean per WP:SNOW? WP:BALLS redirects to Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course. WP:SNOW. Stupid shortcuts.  ;) It doesn't help that sometimes Complete Bollocks can be called a "snow job". =) Powers 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and AfD. I've changed my vote per above, after rereading the WP:NOT section on Crystal Balls. Also WP:SNOW apparently doesn't apply, per Xoloz. Apologies. Powers 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)*Endorse deletion with reservations per LtPowers.Thatcher131 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:NOT is not a valid WP:CSD reason. It may have been valid under A1 or A3 or some other speedy criteria, but I can't tell without seeing the article, so will wait for admin to comment on that. In any case, speedy deletes should list a valid CSD reason in the deletion log, to avoid confusion. MartinRe 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD, per MartinRe, though to be honest, I think the AfD will result in WP:SNOW. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD. Quite obviously an improper speedy, and the article, while bad, is too substantial for me to consider it for the snow shovel. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list on AfD WP:NOT is NOT a Wikipedia CSD. Contested speedy, and classic AfD topic. Rumoured movies frequently survive valid AfDs. Xoloz 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD. Let it get its week in the sun before it's deleted.  RasputinAXP  c 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list not a speedy. --Rob 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This hasn't a hope in hell at AfD. Really. Why waste everybody's time? Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Because we're not AfD, and if we make judgements on content rather than process the norm, rather than something we do purely in extreme cases to save time, we'll turn into it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And slightly perversely, a key reason that it wouldn't survive AfD is that it has been through here. Too many people have said delete now, and people psychologically find it difficult to change their mind/accept they are wrong, so will continue to support deletion come what may. If this debate hadn't occured, I know I could write an article on the purported Alien 5 that would either not getted AFDed or survive AFD, but now that it has, it probably isn't worth me trying :). Should I anyway? Pcb21 Pete 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. If anything an overturn / list decision might have the opposite effect. But any AfD debate which looked at the content of the article as deleted this time is only going to have one outcome. I like process, I think process is important when large numbers of people need to work together and I would probably not have speedied it myself, but I really can't see any point undoing that just so we can trade "due process" for a week of having a crap article with a delete tag. Where's the benefit in that? Just zis Guy you know? 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria, so {{prod}} would have been apropriate rather than a speedy. There is absolutely no point in recreating this for it to spend a week with either a {{prod}} or {{afd}} tag on it before deleting it again. Keep deleted. Thryduulf 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process I still believe it should have been granted a proper review period, but I've notified User:Tregoweth that I will no longer contest. Can somebody retrieve the contents of the page so I can add to my own site? (send by email or simply add to my user page where I will retrieve it) I put in a lot of work assembling all the referenced quotes and would like that effort not to be for nothing. Thanks. 202.0.15.138 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not signed in for that comment. Wikipeon 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW. (And I'm a huge fan.) John Reid 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 09:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article pronto. Serious violation of CSD- we have Prod, we have AfD, we have article talk pages, we have user talk pages- learn how to use them. It is shocking that admins feel entitled to trample established systems, in the process contravening AGF, as they seek to frog march articles off the site. The ends do not justify the means. -- JJay 14:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AFD. There are some small pieces of sources in the article which might give it a chance of survival on AFD. THe proper forum to evaluate whether this is good enough or just pure speculation is a deletion, and not an undeletion discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process, with strong reservations I see original author has withrawn the review and requseted the article be userfied, which I hope it will, as it could be useful should the film plans get more concrete in future. However, I am concerned with the number of SNOW comments. Yes, some incorrectly speedied articles would be snowballed in an afd, but we should be very careful not to allow WP:SNOW become a de facto WP:CSD. For the sake of a few days, I would much prefer a snowballed afd than an incorrect speedy. Yes, mistakes happen, and we shouldn't blindly relist all incorrect speedys, but we should be aware of the impression that the overuse of SNOW as endorsing incorrect speedys gives to people. Saying "this article would so obviously fail, that discussion isn't even necessary" should be used very sparingly. Regards, MartinRe 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Clearly violates WP:CSD. Take to AfD if within the relevant percentage majority. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Clearly violates WP:CSD. Take to AfD ONLY AFTER significant discussion takes place on its own talk page to give it some chance of being all it can be. It doesnt HAVE TO be automatically afd'd again does it now.moza 11:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

2 April 2006

Islamophilia

This article was speedied twice by the same admin during the first two days of a vigorous (but civil) AfD debate and is currently protected by same. At the time of the last speedy there were 21 votes, of which about one third were keeps, and the keeps were not from obvious sockpuppets or madmen. This diversity is significant enough that it should be clear to anybody that a speedy delete (which is supposed to be used in obviously nontrontroversial cases only) is a wrong, wrong thing to do, whether as an attempt to close the AfD or in spite of it.

I would be quite happy to see this article disappear eventually -- nothing good can come from it IMO -- but that does not mean that proces can just be bypassed in this way. The article should be undeleted for the time being and the AfD allowed to run its course. Henning Makholm 09:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• So, you want to undelete an article and put it back on the encyclopedia, when you think it will do wikipedia no good and shouldn't be on the encyclopedia, and a previous afd consensus thought shouldn't be on the encyclopedia, all because you were having a nice little debate, which, theoretically, might have ended in 'no-consensus'? That really is process wonking. --Doc ^ask? 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, appropriate speedy as recreated content. Not something we want sticking around in any case. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, the AFD was developing an interesting range of opinions, and the discussion should be left to run its course. Yes, it seems the original speedy may have been justified following recreation, but I think once the discussion had started to develop it should have been left to run. At the least the admin that speedied it a second time should have posted an explanation. Kcordina ^Talk 09:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment :: I~Phobia has just survived AfD; odd, perhaps, then that I~philia is speedied. NPOV anyone ? -- Simon Cursitor 09:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Islamophobia is a commonly used word. Islamophilia isn't. For each google hit on Islamophilia there are 1400 on Islamophobia. They aren't even in the same ballpark. Shadowoftime 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Kcordina's above comments. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Kcordina. Also, the last round of deletions, according to the log, was nine and a half months ago. The contributor has WP:CHILLed, and after this long period of time, tried again. In the case of new words, a lot may change in nine months, which is why I'd rather see it go through a full AfD cycle and get deleted that way. -- Saberwyn 10:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You know what scares me? Doc glasgow's comment below, saying that no one "did [him] the courtesy" of informing him of the AfD debate. First, that means that he completely missed the nice, big AfD template on the top of the page. I know it was there because I added it to the most recent deleted version, and saw it on the deleted verson before. I'm going to assume bad faith here, and make the assumption that Doc did not even look at the articlepage before he performed the speedy delete. The second thing that scares me about this statement, is that Doc appears to be claiming that there are things on Wikipedia that require his personal permission before they can happen. -- Saberwyn 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy Prior to this debate the article had been deleted five times (by five different admins). A better example of G4 (which was the explaination given both times in the deletion log) would be hard to find. MartinRe 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as a valid speedy of recreated content. While the content may not be identical to the one that was deleted by consensus, I'm not seeing why this is a valid article now when it wasn't last July. While this has been used by newspapers, we're an encyclopaedia and we're not required to cover every single meaningless neologism hacks come out with. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• After I have looked at the two versions, I will say relist. The first deletion, by Kelly Martin back in June, was entirely the correct decision in a sockfest of an AFD debate. The version here has several examples of the term being used by famous authors, journalists and politicians, something which was not in the old version. Therefore, I don't think that this counts as a "substantially identical" version. Also, over a few months, a term which was premature for an article may very well have evolved into a term deserving of one and I think further discussion on this is warranted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Sam Blanning and MartinRe. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted with earth salted. Deleted by valid AfD, deleted again as valid G4 several times, I would also have closed the second AfD as delete, on the weight of arguments presented. Content was not only substantially similar, but was created by the same editor, which looks a lot like gaming the system. WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course the content of an article about the same subject is similar. It has, though, been rewritten from scratch entirely, as has been observed by others. I already prove that its deletion was a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, as such providing textbook examples of politically correct bigotry. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Strangely, bigotry appears to be an excellent description of how the article is viewed by those who have read it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• I am about to make a test. I do not know yet how the test will turn out. I am about to perform a search on "Islamophilia" the full text of the New York TImes from 2000 through yesterday. If this is a real word in itself singificant use, and not just a columnist's or blogger's coinage (or a repeatedly-reinvented nonce word by someone seeking a rhetorical opposite for "Islamophobia,"), then someone, somewhere should have mentioned it in the Times by now. Let's see. My vote will be based on the outcome. Here goes. "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Odd, my own search of NyTimes.com came up with this from September 12, 2004. Netscott 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse, keep deleted. Valid AfD. The question is whether the new article proves that some significant sea-change has occurred since the AfD and the word has exploded into widespread use. The Times search convinces me that it has not.. This is not a real word in significant contemporary use, it is just an occasional reinvention or re-coinage and has no meaning beyond the individual meanings of "islam" and "-philia." I could be searching for a word to explain the recurrence of the thirteenfold motif on the dollar bill and say "triskaidekaphilia" and you'd know what I meant, but that does not mean triskaidekaphilia is a real word that needs an article. You can take an article about any word ending in -phobia and change the ending to -philia and likely find scattered examples of occasional use, but that doesn't mean we need corresponding -philia articles for every -phobia article, any more than we need an article on Pedophobia. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. What Dpbsmith said. Even the most "unabridged" dictionaries don't include entries for every word that is possible by mixing and matching suffixes like "-phobia" and "-philia", and an encyclopedia certainly shouldn't. - Nunh-huh 12:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: clear violation of Wikipedia policy. The VfD was not concluded in a proper manner. The deletor cannot motivate his deletion by objective reasons. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In a way that your repeated re-creation of a deleted article is not violation of policy? Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not, and I can. But 1. no-one did me the courtacy of informing me of this debate. 2. I speedied this twice per CSD G4, 'recreation of previously deleted content 3.'. There was a clear consensus 4. to delete the first time, and you don't get to game the system by constantly recreating and sending to afd until you can magic 31% to create a no-consensus. If there was reason to overturn the first afd, you bring it here and give your reasons. Keep deleted, obviously.--Doc ^ask? 12:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ad 1. The page was tagged with a huge VfD boiler template just minutes after creation which was hard to miss. This renders this point less plausible, bordering the ludicrous.
      ad 2. I rewrote thepage from scratch as I had not a backup copy, assuming some basic feeling of fair play aty the side of Wikipedia admins. It can be easily verified that the page is quite different from the version nine months ago.
      ad 3. Recreating the page more than nine months after the last VfD in which there was just a slim majority of 55% to delete it, hardly qualifies as gaming the system. Refer to the applicable Wikipedia VfD policy.
      ad 4. There was not a clear consensus, not nine months ago and not now. Please check the VfD attempts.
      --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Since this was not an exact recreation of content the G4 does not seem motivated. Furthermore, an excessive reliance on process over common sense is not constructive. The previous debate was held almost a year ago and was marred by puppets. This debate had significant participation and was properly conducted. In my opinion, using G4 while an AfD is in progress does more damage than any possible good. -- JJay 13:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. While this is as far as I can tell a neologism, it is important to follow process when dealing with controversial issues. JoshuaZ 13:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - keep deleted - per Doc glascow, MartinRe and Sam Blanning. I certainly trust Doc's knowledge of process and his judgment. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The article spliced together a number of separate neologisms for this term but it is not in general use, is pejorative, and I don't think a reasonable encyclopaedia article can be made out of it. David | Talk 14:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse G4 speedy/keep deleted per Dbpsmith. His test [1] convinces me of neologistic status as well. A valid AfD [2] deserves respect until substantial cause is given to reconsider. Xoloz 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [1] Can you elaborate on this test? [2]I have proven that the previous AfD and this AfD were not valid at all. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • 1.) See Dpbsmith's comments for his test and 2.) The previous AfD looks valid to me, and (reading your comments) I see no "proof" otherwise. First AfD was closed 5k/29d (discounting sockpuppets, which closer annotated), which is much more than 55%. Xoloz 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. His remarks have been scanned. The New York Times is known for its politically correct bias thus hardly can be deemed a trustworthy source for evaluating the concurrency of politically incorrect parlance. Other publications such as the Times and Washington Times did use the word. This so-called 'research', thus, is Americocentric and disregards British and other non-American media and discourse.
        2. It was not valid for the following reasons. a) Less than 2/3 majority b) Arbitrary disregard of anonymous votes (violation of innocent until proven) c) Disturbance of voting process by premature deletion of the page.
        Additional arguments for maintaining the term are:
        is notable
        is used in print
        is used in several reputable academic publications
        yields about 1000 Google hits
        --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I think in section b of this last comment, the source of the misunderstanding becomes clear. Wikipedia has had such bad experiences with users creating sockpuppet accounts in an attempt to bias our decision-making process that we have long-established traditions in which all suspiciously new or anonymous accounts may be disregarded at the discretion of the closing administrator. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. We are not holding a court nor are we making decisions about the life or liberty of the users. Furthermore, it's essentially impossible to prove sockpuppetry, making that an impossible standard for our purposes. An better analogy is that we are establishing (well ahead of time) some reasonable requirements for sufferage. Note that the concept of sufferage also applies only weakly because AFD decision-making process is a discussion, not a vote.
          Your other points about notability and use in print are possible arguments for undeletion but so far you have not provided any sources for those claims and even if true, they still seem to qualify this term as a neologism which is deletable under the Wikipedia is not a dictionary rule. Perhaps this content would be more appropriate over in Wiktionary? Rossami (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/Keep deleted and salted. This article has been recreated and redeleted so many times, it's almost become a cliché for {{deletedpage}}. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • With reason. All of its deletes were arbitrary and clear violations of applicable Wikipedia guidelines, as I explained above. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per User:JzG's comments above. --Hetar 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above; perfectly within process, and the right thing to do given previous AfD discussin. Eusebeus 10:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and transwikify to Striverpedia. Thatcher131 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per User:Dpbsmith's [1] test logic. [19]. I've not voted in any of the previous AfD's for Islamophilia (I'm a bit indifferent to the word myself) but speedy deletion seems to have been an improper course of action. Netscott 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Keep deleted and salted. I think it's been through plenty of deletion processes. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure - Still no reason as to why it should be re-re-created has been made. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - per above. Raphael1 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Germen. Concern that the contentious term may have been improperly deleted. It's not used as much as -phobia but has been used by a number of websites and pundits to describe perceived obsequious pandering to Muslim demands. (In this sense it is similar to philo-Semitism.) I am expressing no opinion here as to the merits of the term, but it deserves more discussion; a less hasty solution might have been to redirect it to Islamophobia and describe it as a pendant to the more common term there. ProhibitOnions 21:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and relist on AfD The first deletion following AfD was valid. The second G4 speedy deletion in the midst of another AfD was not valid. The article as it stood at the time of deletion was clearly not recreated content of a substantially identical copy of the deleted material. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• overturn and relist this please erasure was not valid Yuckfoo 07:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 April

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

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

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

Content review

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

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

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• Category:Political divisions of the United States and its Talk. This was apparently deleted last year without going through the usual CfR process, and the history would be useful in the current CfR debate. --William Allen Simpson 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. If you couldt tag it for speedy or ping my talk once you're done. -Splash^talk 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4#Subdivisions to Administrative divisions --William Allen Simpson 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Category:Administrative divisions of South Korea and its Talk. As above. --William Allen Simpson 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As requested. If you might be so kind as to repeat the above with this as well. —Encephalon 12:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

10 April 2006

Cleveland steamer

Kept at Afd not once but twice. Arguments for deletion: unverifiable from any reliable sources, no reliable source has ever been cited. Arguments for keep: "Real, I've heard of it"; removing it would be "censorship". Two AfDs, several tags, numerous arguments, and not one reliable source has ever been cited. Which leads me to believe that no reliable source can be cited, because none exists. So, how long do we have to wait before we finally acknowledge that, or does it get to stay forever and we amend WP:V to say any old nonsense can be added as long as we tag it as unverifiable? Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Why is this being discussed here if the article has not been deleted? Silensor 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - if you dislike it, list on VFD and don't forum shop. An old version, while needing massive cleanup, did have a number of uses of the term in popular culture, including Family Guy and the Daily Show. Its existence is not in question and its definition is not in question. Calling for deletion on the grounds of unverifiability is simple process wanking. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No it's not. Why does sex stuff have a lower notability verifiability threshold than anything else? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Where did I say it does or should? This also doesn't seem to be about notability, but about verifiability. The VFDs concluded that a majority of voters believe it to be "notable", which is more or less rough consensus, as much as can be said about the notability of anything. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Freudian slip. I meant verifiability (actually, the two are virtually synonymous to me). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • My point still holds. Where did I say it does or should? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the ambiguity. The part that was aimed at you was the "no it's not". The comment about verifiability was a general question. I don't have an answer for it, though, and it is doubtless true. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Certainly there are good enough sources for this. If other articles are being deleted for having similar sourcing, that's a problem with their deletion. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Then where are these sources? It's not my responsibility to find them. It's the responsibility of people who want to keep the "facts" in the article. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Sam's correct. According to wikipedia policy, it is attributed to the person inserting the information to cite sources, not to the person removing it. And a citation from Family Guy is worthless in a encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
            • They were removed by Brian G. Crawford, and then revert-warred over. I have restored some of the better ones. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I think they were rmeoved because they are not reliable sources. There are still, as of this moment, no reliable sources for this article, it remains unverified. The only references appear to be a couple of comedy shows. I'd say it's a classic protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
                • There are certainly reliable sources that show that it exists across many works. Certainly better than the average Pokemon. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • That's an argument for deleting Pokemon, not for keeping junk like this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • It's an argument for keeping this if I think Pokemon should be kept. Which I do. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the alledged "references" are absolutely unacceptable and should be nowhere near this site. The most recent I looked at [63] is a blatent porn site link. I appluad Brian for taking common sense into effect and zapping that nonsense.-Zero^Talk 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Uh? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Daily Show and Family Guy references make it quite blatant about what the meaning is. Also, I think there was a Savage Love column a while ago that discussed what it was. Someone should just go through and put in those citations. 128.36.90.72 21:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Two debates, and still no verification? Overturn and delete unless verified before this debate closes. --Doc ^ask? 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do not overturn, relist if Guy wants. Process was followed both times, DRV does not overturn AfD based purely on the content of the article. Or in other words, AfD is overturned when the closing admin's interpretation of consensus is questionable, or when new evidence is presented that could conceivably have changed the outcome, not "because they got it wrong". DRV should be a safety net, not the 'second round' of deletion discussions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• No, process was not followed. AfD was treated like a vote (which it is not) rather than on policy (which in this case means it must be removed, as no sources could be found). If it can be verified from reliabel sources, fine, but last I saw it could not. Despite mass protestations that iot could. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• My judgement may be somewhat clouded because... I heard of it on teh Internets as well :-). It's not that I don't believe in verifiability, I just don't want to see 100 or even 50 articles a day on this page. If a discussion on DRV is divided into AfD's "keep" and "delete", as it is here, rather than "keep deleted" or "undelete", DRV is becoming a rematch instead of a reconsideration, and that must not happen.
• I think for AfD to declare "Professor H. Q. Tenure of the University of Intercourse Pennsylvania may not have written a study on this subject, but if its been referenced in pop culture so many times it's worth an article" is a valid result. After all, if we have featured articles that are only mentioned in a single pop culture reference, surely we can have things that are mentioned in a mere few. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• The episode of Family Guy that mentioned this meme was "Mr. Saturday Knight" [64]. It seems trivial to verify that there is at least an internet meme about it (75,000 Google hits). At the very very least it has to be redirected to wherever we have a list. Pcb21 Pete 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep... Verifiable source.... hows the San Francisco Bay Guardian? I think the fact there are over 80,000 google hits for the exact phrase "Cleveland Steamer" says we need an article on it.  ALKIVAR™ 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't deleted. You mean "keep" JoshuaZ 22:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And that reference says that there is a t-shirt form getoffended.com. But no reliable sources. Still waiting on those. Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh so a newspaper with an audience of 150,000 isnt a "verifiable source" ... gotcha...  ALKIVAR™ 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry to be a broken record but why is this being discussed here? The article has not been deleted and this discussion does not belong here. Silensor 22:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Forum shopping. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• I have voted "delete" on this article's recent AfD and some of the others of its ilk. However after seeing the support for them I have a new suggestion. Merge this article with others such as Donkey Punch, et al into a single article dealing with the phenomenon of fictitious sex acts, maybe Fictitious sex acts phenomenon (Note: I am aware that these things may have actually occurred before the popularization of these terms but that is pure coincidence. By fictitious and imaginary I mean that the creators of these terms were not sexual historians referring to real-life acts but comedy writers who probably developed the definition from their imagination) The benefit to doing it this way is that by referring to them as fictional, we can use the web pages where they first appeared as sources for the phenomenon of the creation of these terms, instead of the current line of thinking which forces us to pretend like there was some sort of sexual underground where folks went around bragging about pulling "Cleveland steamers" on people. And of course when as in the case of Donkey punch that porn movies start showing these things after the phrases have become popular, that information can be added to the article I've suggested, and indeed it might actually make for encyclopedic content to examine how and why a sex act can go from fiction to reality. GT 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• DRV is not the place to refight an AFD debate over an article that was kept. Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Bearcat 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Censure forum shopping. Keep article. Discuss problems on talk. Grace Note 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, unless someone can find a real reference. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified before this debate closes. Johntex\^talk 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Newsflash: This is not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to delete the article, take it to WP:AFD. Silensor 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "It[Deletion review] also considers disputed decisions made in other deletion-related fora." That's from the top of this page. Deletion review is for revewing any AFD decision, whether keep or delete. It would be strange to say that only delete decisions can be disputed. Dmcdevit·t 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Last I checked, DRV is for any deletion discussion that may have been closed inappropriately, regardless of whether the article was deleted or kept. If JzG believes the AfD discussion was closed inappropriately (and I will say that there would have been good reason to discount several of the Keep votes), then this is the appropriate forum for reviewing that decision. I am not going to vote here, though, because I can see both sides; it's arguable both that there was no consensus and that there was consensus to delete.
  • Last I checked, Deletion review (formerly known as Votes for Undeletion) was to discuss overturning the deletion of an article, not vice-versa. Silensor 00:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Checked where? Precedent says differently, see just recently List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC). But I suggest this discussion of what DRV can be used for belongs on the talk page of this --Doc ^ask? 00:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Actually, nowadays DRV is able to go over all decisions made in AFD, MFD, TFD, xFD, etcetera, including keeps. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Then I'd strongly suggest that the intro blurb at the top of DRV be edited to state that, because as it stands the intro explicitly states that the purpose is to review disputed deletions, not disputed keeps. Bearcat 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• If this is verifiable, then why isn't it cited with sources that meet WP:RS? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Again keep, relist on AfD if you are so conserned with it. bbx 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and relist, verifiable. Google search comes up with over 83,000 hits. Yahoo comes up with 48,000 hits. Also here's a direct reference for you reference JohnnyBGood 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dances of Detroit

Requesting to restore page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dances_of_Detroit Was delted for copyright violation at website http://www.detroitdepot.net/depot/dance.php However, owner made this contribution (me). Page was linked under See also portion of Detroit main page.

So what part of "do not link to sites you own or control" were you having trouble understanding? And what is the evidence that these dances are unique to Detroit? Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Rikki Lee Travolta

I'm bringing up an AfD I closed myself as "delete" up here, because User:Everyking contacted me saying I closed it too hastily. As you can see from the AfD discussion, there are plenty of votes that can be seen as ballot stuffing. Therefore I determined that the overall feeling of the Wikipedia community was towards deletion, and closed it as delete.

I am opening this up to see whether the outcome is "undelete and keep", "undelete and relist" or "keep deleted". I am voting keep deleted myself. JIP | Talk 13:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Quite obviously closed properly, ignoring massive astroturfing. If Everyking isn't willing to ask for review himself I'm tempted to say speedy endorse closure if such a thing exists so we don't have to go through this nonsense again. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse closure as above. All but a couple of the keep votes were from new users or users whose only edits were to the article, and there were lots of deletes. I don't feel like doing a count but it looks like the consensus was about 95% delete, discounting suspected socks. That should be plenty. Suggest that this be speedy-endorsed per overwhelming consensus and strong verifiability issues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (but not speedily). Everyking asking JIP is Everyking being courteous. IMO, it's better to talk to the admin first before putting it up for DRV. That JIP brought it up on DRV is also courtesy on JIP's part. That all said, I think the AfD was validly analysed and closed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I echo Deathphoenix's comments on the courtesy displayed in this review request. Would that every debate here were equally civil. Rossami (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd (but not speedily) per Deathphoenix. Kudos for the civil request, but I have no idea what could seriously call this AfD into question. Obvious flood of "newbies with an apparent agenda," easy votes to disqualify. Xoloz 15:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid closure, AfD was open for five days, I see no need to reconsider. Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, salt the earth. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• endorse closure (full disclosure I voted to delete in the AfD). JoshuaZ 18:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: While I don't necessarily have an issue with the way the AfD was closed given the unfortunate way we deal with socks in such discussions, the AfD was presented with the problem of self-promotion which was never really clearly figured out from my biew, and verifiability, which was more than dealt with as there are plenty of sources verifying who this person is. While the unfortunately overwhelming consensus was to delete in the face of verifiable information keeps me from saying that this should be overturned at this point, I am curious as to how much weight the actual argument was given in the closure. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment His existence was verifiable, however his own press releases are not sufficient indication of notability or verifiability of any of his supposedly notable claims. 128.36.90.72 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mylifeoftravel.com

This page was deleted after a small number of editors claimed the site is not notable and does not have the membership to warrant the page. I would like this reviewed as I believe the site membership exceeds many of the social networking websites listed on Wikipedia. The site also offers features unique to the blogging industry (interactive mapping, advanced journal sharing and contact tree grouping) and I believe those who voted against it did not take the time to review the site.

There are nearly 2000 social networking websites maintaining pages in Wikipedia, many of which do not have anywhere close to the same membership, nor do they offer technology unique to the industry.

I cannot provide a list of current membership as this is confidential, but I can provide a list of URL's to blog homepages as at the end of our initial test month (October 2005) which clearly shows a user base large enough to provide evidence of credibility for both being notable and verifiable.: Calanh 09:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(moved this ridiculously long list to User:Samuel Blanning/Mylifeoftravel to preserve the flow of this page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Valid AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mylifeoftravel.com. Flood of unsigned votes from anonymous contributors was properly discounted as per WP:SOCK. --Allen3 ^talk 10:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Valid AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. AfD was subject to attempted sockpuppet/anon ballot stuffing and rightly closed as a delete among established users. This is a non-notable website. David | Talk 11:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. These guys have got to realise that simply showing up at the door doesn't automatically entitle you to a vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AFD. Sockpuppet flood was pathetic, most of them didn't even bother to create accounts. I'd also like to ask the nominator to present evidence for the claim that "There are nearly 2000 social networking websites maintaining pages in Wikipedia" That's surprising, considering that List of social networking websites only lists about 50 or so of them. Please let us know where the other 1,950 social networking website articles might be hiding. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd Claims of DRV nomination are dubious, as was the effort of article's supporters at the original AfD. Deletion right on the merits, no flaw in process. Xoloz 15:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Validly closed AfD, more than the usual number of "votes", clear consensus to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Discounting the sockpuppet vote, the original consensus was pretty clear. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

9 April 2006

List of news aggregators

Article was put up to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of news aggregators where there was 64.3% for deletion which is far below what is normally considered standard deletion consensus. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion: The aggregation of content on the web by reliable sources is becoming increasingly important as the volume of unverified material grows. The list can develop over time with articles about the important entries. Stephen B Streater 07:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Last time I checked, we didn't determine consensus by vote tallies. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course we don't, we determine it by consensus and I apologize if I wasn't clear that I didn't hold the vote tally to be any form of measurement but even ignoring the vote tally there was not a clear consensus to delete. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. 64% allows the closing admin to use his discretion and weigh up the arguments, and as none of the keep voters managed to explain why Wikipedia is not a collection of external links is no longer policy, he was justified in closing as a delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure WP:NOT this.--Doc ^ask? 13:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure At least two of the keep voters were potentially disqualifiable as new editors, and the established users who voted keep did so weakly. Hence, even for those worried about percentages, the number is probably much higher. Xoloz 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Just a collection of external links, against policy per Sam B. Better to have a category and wiki articles, for those who think this is worthwhile. · rodii · 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist 64.3% isn't consensus. Computerjoe's talk 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Pray tell how you can tell if there is consensus from calculating percentages. Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc glasgow. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam and Doc. JoshuaZ 02:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted. Proceurally, Xoloz nailed this one on the head: discounting sockpuppets and new accounts per ordinary operating procedure, two of the keeps were "weak", which also has an influence in the way the closing admin reads the debate. Also, judging on the merits of the article, it is a list of external links, breaking WP:NOT. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Even if the AfD had been clearly closed wrongly (which it wasn't) the article is against policy as purely external links and not of encyclopaedic value. David | Talk 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per precedent of keeping similar software lists. Inconsistency is POV.  Grue  12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a list of Wikipedia articles. It's a list of external links. The content as it stands would be by and large worthless to other editors, and only encourage linkspam. Anyone who wants to create a real list is free to do so. Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the article as written was complete rubbish, and probably qualified for a speedy, let alone an AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. WP:NOT a collection of external links (which is all this "article" is). Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, the number of votes does not matter since AfD is a discussion page, not a vote page, and the article clearly violates Wikipedia policy at WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure it seems fairly clear that the consensus was to delete. Ziggurat 21:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

8 April 2006

Joshua Wolf

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Wolf

The article about me, was recently deleted after it was deemed that I am not a notable figure. While that may be true, it's important to note that I have never identified with the name "Joshua Wolf" beyond legal documents and thus, the google searches for that name revealed very little of what I have been involved in throughout my recent years. Had they Googled "Josh Wolf" instead, they would've been offered a very different perspective on myself, and I think it's important for that to be considered.

It seems weird to do so, but I feel that I should list some of my accomplishments in order to better decide whether or not I am a notable person.

The wikipedia article stems from a legal case I am currently involved in pertaining to my rights as an independent journalist and videoblogger, and the footage that I shot during a protest which has since been subpoenad by the Federal Grand Jury. The details of that case can be found here.

I have also maintained a videoblog for over a year, and have been actively involved on Current.TV's website dating back to it's days as INdTV and became their official meetup group organzier (the group is still active with 275 members but is no longer affiliated with Current TV). In part due to my outspoken views of Current's policies both on their message boards and my blog, I was profiled in an article for (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/07/11/goretv/index.html Salon) magazine, and my photograph was featured in [http://flickr.com/photos/69258677@N00/31389600/ TIME) magazine as a critic of Current.

I am also the co-founder of the (http://riseupnetwork.com Rise Up Network) a non-profit media distribution organization still very much in development but focused on online and DVD distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.146.120 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted One legal case and minor advocacy work do not an enecyclopedic subject make. Pretty much covered at the the AFD. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (Italicized word added by Swatjester)
• Keep deleted This case may very well become notable, but it is still a developing story, really in embryonic form. Additionally, a request from the article's subject is not usually treated as compelling evidence, given obvious bias. Xoloz 17:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the subject is pointing out that participants in AfD failed to find information that would have been relevant to the debate, because the article was entitled "Joshua Wolf" rather than the more common "Josh Wolf". Thus the AfD didn't consider the Time and Salon coverage linked to above. You are of course still entitled to hold opinions of notability, but the request has a genuine basis. --bainer (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Xoloz. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD There is a small but significant chance that this new evidence will make it be kept. JoshuaZ 18:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/keep deleted, valid AfD. I userfied this article to User:Joshwolf on 03:38, 9 April 2006 per user request, and since the AfD already resulted in a deletion due to non-notability, I think the article as it currently resides is fine (ie, it doesn't belong in the main articlespace). However, I would note that I didn't perform the userfy request until after he already submitted this DRV, so it could be that this DRV is no longer necessary after the userfication. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion... if the article creater wants to recreate the article, we can debate this shaky evidence on the next AfD. Mangojuice 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Deathphoenix. Just zis Guy you know? 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

John Scherer

Adequate stub article speedied after objections to PROD. Content short, but provided necessary context, and subject conspicuously notable (as acknowledged in deletion log). Monicasdude 19:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but feel free to recreate an article. The full content was 'John Scherer is the creater and owner of Video Professor(tm) brand computer learning software.' If you read the notes to the page above, you will find it says: If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub "undeleted". If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. That works for me. --Doc ^ask? 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overtun and undelete There is no reason to delete a single sentence stub in this case. If verifiability is your worry, I can comfirm that Scherer's ads pop up on my television at least five times a day. Annoying fellow, he is. Xoloz 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It's a valid speedy for an empty article, but it also is a valid topic, so if it is rewritten, that edit should be undeleted for GFDL purposes. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So someone go re-write it - or undelete it or whatever. I hardly think anyone is going to assert there GDFL rights over one sentence, but whatever. This is not worth a debate. Anyone who wants it, go write it, with or without undeletion. --Doc ^ask? 22:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but write an actual article or at least an actually adequate stub if you want. Instead of singing yet another chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred", do the work yourself. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As a devout believer in Onanism, I'd never sing that song; nevertheless, especially since anon page creation has been disabled, a tiny stub is much nicer than nothing. :) Xoloz 02:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc. If you want it, go write it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, friends, I have recreated the article by cutting and pasting the original sentence, and adding all I know about this man. It's recreated as you asked. How about we don't speedy it now, since I was only doing as was asked? Xoloz 15:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, as that action always was legitimate. It is clearly not a speedy candidate now, so if anyone wishes to contest it they can go to AfD. --Doc ^ask? 16:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gigi Stone

Adequate stub article speedied after objections to PROD. Content short, but provided necessary context, and subject (ABC-TV news correspondent) meets notability criteria. Monicasdude 19:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but recreate and expand if you wish. Full content wasGigi Stone is a correspondent at ABC News. - validly deleted as emply (see my full reasoning above)--Doc ^ask? 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete A single sentence is often enough a sufficient stub. No compelling reason for deletion given in this case. Xoloz 22:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but write an actual article or at least an actually adequate stub if you want. Instead of singing yet another chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred", do the work yourself. --Calton | Talk 00:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc. See other similar case above (or below, wherever it is).⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, exactly what Doc said. Just zis Guy you know? 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

6 April 2006

George Goble

Inappropriate PROD. Someone wrote an article about the notable engineer George H. Goble (who already had an article) but called it George Gobles, mispelling Goble's name. This led to a PROD because the misspelling got few Google hits. I unprodded and moved the article but it got deleted anyway. I request undeletion for purpose of merging into George H. Goble and redirecting. Phr 14:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think there was anything useful there for the other article. It was only 3 sentences long. I dumped the content to User:Phr/Sandbox so that you can see if there was anything worth using. If not, just simply create the redirect. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Phr 15:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect I doubt it will be harmful to remake the page as a redirect. does not appear to need a merge though per above. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

John Law (artistic pioneer)

Can the article on John Law the artist please be undeleted? I was not the original creator but I made some contributions to the page because I thought it was an important subject. The admin harro5 did a speedy deletion based on A7 (not significant). John Law was a very influential member of the Suicide Club, the Cacophany Society, and the early formation of the Burning Man (an event attended by over 30,000 people last year). He has also authored at least one book that I know of. Not everyone may agree with his theories on culture and art but they are undeniably significant and, important to wikipedia, they were foundamental concepts for several movements which do have thier own pages in Wikipedia. At a minimum can we have a "not so speedy" deletion? Thank you! kanoa 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I think the information that was there is really unusable. It's probably better if you just start a brand-new page on him at John Law (artist) that establishes his notability on the basis of cited, verifiable, reliable sources. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. This was John Law (artistic pioneer) (a POV title if ever I saw one), the content was uncited, the tone was hagiographic and the subject is of questionable notability (see [65]). If you want to try again with verifiable citations from non-trivial reliable sources do feel free, but any AfD on the content as speedied (twice) is going to be met by a chorus of "speedy delete" since there is no evidence of meeting the notability guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (I corrected the heading to point to the proper article), valid speedy, per JzG. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion If nothing else, the article title makes any claim of NPOV suspect. Feel free to write a WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV article anew. Xoloz 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Please let us look and judge for ourselves? Is that possible? I may be inspired to write a robust article if I can review some of the material, and use that as a base to start a search. The title seems unusual but i simply fail to see POV in it. Shouldnt it just be John (insert initial) Law with a link from a disambiguation page? thnaks for some consideration,moza 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Write new article I think he's notable, and that a real, verifiable article could be written about him. The previous articles, though, were rightly deleted as not asserting notability, being close to nonsense ("Inhabiter of clock towers. Famed spelunker, drunken Santa, survival researcher, bridge summiter and billboard connoisseur."), and having severe verifiability problems ("...artistic movements that remain underground and quasi legal and therefor can not be named."). In summary, I have no objection to a real article being written, but have a strong objection to the previous content being undeleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Starting over from scratch will give the article a better chance of becoming encyclopedic. --FloNight ^talk 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Jzg. Couldn't have said it better myself. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jainism and Judaism

This was deleted through the Prod process on the 1st April 2006. However it had previously survived an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jainism and Judaism). Can prod "win" over AfD in that way?

The other issue is that are 6 Jainism and Xism articles. Some consistency would be good - all are linked from Jainism. (However, I should report that the 5 surviving Jainism and Xism articles score in total 1 Neturality dispute, 4 Cleanup, 1 wikify and 1 please expand. Clearly some work is required).

Part of the AfD discussion was a suggestion to merge all these articles into Jainism and world religions. Unfortunately nobody stepped forward after the AfD vote to edit boldly. (No I'm not volunteering, lack of knowledge and lack of interest in the subject).

What a mess! Where do we go from here? I think that a Deletion review for Jainism and Judaism might be the right place to start from.

Cje 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say a PROD that's six months after an AFD that was far from a resounding keep (not many people discussed it, and those who did were mostly inclined to merge it and its siblings into a single article comparing Jainism with other world religions) is legitimate. If anyone had really cared about keeping it, the PROD tag would have been removed. Keep deleted. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Angr. If no one who had the article on their watchlist cared enough to remove the prod tag, then let the article stay deleted. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid PROD process. It's not a matter of whether PROD has precedence over AFD: it's the fact that PROD is the latest result. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• If a PROD is challenged, it is undeleted as per WP:PROD#Relation to other processes. Thusly. It's a matter for a new AfD. -Splash^talk 16:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD, very well, I guess I'm not fully versed in the PROD process. :-P --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with Angr. AFD decisions are not permanent. Articles can always be renominated and are not limited to only subsequent AFDs. Note: I am interpreting Cje's question to be a theoretical one and not a specific challenge to the deletion of this article. If he/she clarifies the nomination and makes this a clear challenge to the deletion of this particular article, then it should be relisted. Rossami (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Splash PROD is still undergoing a live test run, folks... it's a marvelous thing, but rough spots are still subject to rapid review. Any good-faith dispute is sufficient to restore for AfD. Unlike Rossami, I do read the nomination as requesting overturn -- "what a mess!" is not a theoretical-framing statement, in my view, but reflects distress at the result. Xoloz 20:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist I guess, but merging seems like a much better solution in the end. Just zis Guy you know? 21:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD per Splash. Thatcher131 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Splash and Xoloz. —Encephalon 02:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article. The question looks relatively simple to me. Prodding an article that has previously survived AfD is specifically disallowed by Wp:prod under the heading "What this process is Not for". The applicable phrase is the following: if an article has already been through AfD and the consensus was to keep (or there was no consensus), then objections to its deletion have already been raised. Prod can not override a previous AfD. -- JJay 01:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me try and clarify why I opened this request. I came across Jainism and Sikhism on the list of unwikified articles and started digging a little. I found 4 related articles Jainism and Hinduism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam, in various states of repair, but a deleted "Jainism and Judaism". Checking the logs I found that this had been through prod, but that there had been a previous AfD and survived - though with a consensus that merging all 6 articles was the best way to go. I would agree with that consensus. At this point my gut reaction was something has gone wrong here, because:

• The general topic of Jainism and world religions seems notable and a good subject for an article
• There was a consensus (from AfD) that the articles should be merged.
• The deletion of the Judaism article means we can't merge.
• Consistency is good! Either keep all 6 articles (though merged) or delete all 6.
• An important topic, but there seems to be no subject expert who's willing to do the merge, then edit it until we get a good article.
• Aggh!! (I wish I'd written that, instead of "what a mess")

I've been around Wikipedia for a while now, but have generally worked away quietly wikifying dead end articles, so I'm not as familiar with details of processes as most of the contributors to this discussion are. But it did seem to me that the situation I describe above was not the intention of Prod.

So I made the request as both a genuine request that the article be undeleted (so "someone" can merge it), and to flag a possible general process issue. If this is the only time that Prod and AfD come into apparent conflict, then let's forget the "theoretical question" and all get back to editing the encylopedia. However, if such situations are likely to be repeated in the future then getting some consensus on ground rules would be useful.

I would like to emphasise that I am not alleging bad faith on anyone's part. I came across a small problem, reported it in the most appropriate forum I could think of, and a sensible discussion resulted. That's wikipedia working well. If my "what a mess" cri de coeur sounded critical, then I apologise for a poor choice of words.

Now I see that Jainism and Judaism article is back. I've tagged all 6 articles for merge into clean them up to the best of my ability. I will almost certainly immeditiately tag it as needing cleanup and/or an expert help because I have no knowledge in this area!

Cje 10:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I attempted the merge, but it's not working. I've proposed AfD and attempted to clean up as much as possible. Thanks to all for patience. Cje 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I just want to weigh in as the PRODder. It was a mistake - had I read the history closely and seen that it was through AfD before, I would not have prodded it, even though I would have given it a strong delete if I had been part of the original AfD. My apologies. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 05:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

5 April 2006

Grophland

Deleted as being non-notable (discussion here), but there are a number of other similar articles linked from Digital_pet about games no more or less notable. In fact the Digital_pet article created a stub for Grophland which I then expanded, so if Grophland is to be removed then shouldn't they all be? No suggestion that the article was not neutral, better to fix it than delete it if it was surely. Hituro 18:01, 5 April 2006 (GMT)

• Endorse Deletion Valid Afd. The off shoot pets seem to vary in notablity some have long articles, and others just one line stubs. Might be better to merge the small pets back together into the main article under "Minor Pets", unless they are strong (notable) enough to survive in the wild by themselves. MartinRe 17:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• I thought the criterion was not supposed to be the importance of the topic of the article but the validity of the article itself. Why is a complete article on a site with fewer users less valid than one on a site with a greater number of users if both articles follow the guidelines? Hituro 20:04, 5 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Despite some concerns, notability has long been a consideration in AfDs, consistent with WP:NOT a general knowledgebase. See Wikipedia:Notability Xoloz 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link, I wish that had been more clear before I expended the hour or so writing the article! As it says on that page, I obviously thought it was worth listing. Hituro 21:25, 5 April 2006 (GMT)
    • Oh dear...sorry about that! If you'd like to have the text back for your own purposes, I'm sure any admin will send it to your userspace for you, as long as you promise not to repost it elsewhere on WP. Xoloz 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per MartinRe; however, I see no problem with an independent redirect to the digital pet article if subject is mentioned there. Such a choice at individual editor's discretion, of course. Xoloz 19:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD is valid; a mention on the Digital pet article might well deserve an external link instead of an internal link. Fetofs ^Hello! 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well it seems strange to have all these pages saying "this is a stub, please expand it" and then remove any page that's added because it's not important enough. The stubs create the expectation that there ought to be an article, and make wikipedia look incomplete because they are not there. In fact someone else had expanded the stud, and it was scheduled to be removed because it wasn't complete enough, so I completed it, and it gets deleted for not being important enough. Shouldn't the stubs and links be removed as well? That should be a general principle in fact. Hituro 7:59, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

• These are two separate issues. But you are right that people should not create stubs on subjects which are not actually important enough to have an article at all. I'd say that creating an article on a subject where you can't be bothered to give at least the basic context and claims to notability is a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - the argument that because some trivial articles exist no trivial subject may be deleted has never been persuasive. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. If other articles of similar notability also exist, perhaps they should be AfDed as well. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

List of people compared to Bob Dylan

AfD discussion here [66], with 4 keeps, 1 conditional keep, 7 deletes, and 1 merge (to Bob Dylan. Closing admin originally closed as delete, then decided to merge. That's the worst possible outcome; the AfD centered on whether the content was worthwhile -- if it wasn't, adding it (even in an abbreviated version) to another article is just sweeping the dirt under the rug. I think the Afd should have been closed as no consensus, and the article therefore kept; but deletion wouldn't bother me much either. Monicasdude 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Merge Topics can be worthwile, yet not notable enough to justify a separate article. Keep arguments for verifibilty were good, yet delete point that list of musicans that this could encompass could be large was also valid. A merge as per the last comment seems a sensible compromise, as it is a usful subtopic, but in a main article it will be pruned down to notable comparasions. MartinRe 15:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• The article has been moved to List of people likened to Bob Dylan and its redirect deleted. So the history is preserved, and the merge has, I presume, been carried out, since this new title is a redirect to [[Bob Dylan[[. -Splash^talk 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• That article is horrible. Seriously. Listcruft of the worst kind - an uncited list of all the people who someone (of no known authority) once referred to as the Bob Dylan of foo - what the hell is that doing in an encyclopaedia? I despair. This is a classic case for a category: artists inspired by Bob Dylan, where article editors can debate the extent of influence so only the meaningful and unambiguous get added. Just zis Guy you know? 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken here. Only cited entries are left in the list. `'mikka (t) 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Endorse DeleteJust cause it's cited doesn't mean it belongs in it's own list. Horrible list cruft as per JzG. ⇒ SWATJester <sup>Ready</sup> Aim <sub>Fire!</sub> 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse any kind of preservation of verifiable content about notable persons. `'mikka (t) 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, nothing of the content viewed as invalid by those recommending deletion was merged. If you see what the person proposing a merge said, he meant merging the information on artists Bob Dylan was compared to in his early days, which is verifiable and definitely notable. The other content was not merged, but is available in the page history. Only the redirect was deleted, although I can't see why I didn't just fix the double redirect anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, in the strictest sense, an AfD only discusses whether the content is to be kept or deleted. Once an article is closed as not deleted, the content may be merged without a vote if necessary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (kind of: it was a "no consensus" in my eyes, and the merger was a post-closing unilateral act which as Deathphoenix says anyone can do). --kingboyk 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have not yet looked at the article. I am about to look at it. If it turns out that most of the names of people "compared to Bob Dylan" are accompanied by good, verifiable source citations, with a quotation cited to show how the person is being compared to Bob Dylan, I will vote to relist. Here goes. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Take no action here The article has not been deleted, and is thus was not appropriate to bring here. It is currently a redirect to List of people likened to Bob Dylan. Virtually all of the names are accompanied by references. Spot checking of a couple shows that the references mostly do support the comparison. Clearly the appropriate action is to do nothing. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, it's something of a "Duelling Consensusses" situation now; the AfD was closed with a merger (abridged) into Bob Dylan. Editors on the main Dylan article (myself included) have been removing listcruft of all sorts from that article for some time, and after a bit of a dispute the consensus there seemed clearly to be to let this stand on its own. So, based on that consensus, I was WP:BOLD and undid the merger, since the AfD technically didn't end in deletion. One of the editors who feels very strongly about keeping the material then went over it for verifiability and made significant improvements. I think the current state is one folks should be able to live with as the least disputed and most likely to be stable. Monicasdude 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion though open to merge It it's not useable as an article in itself but if it were trimmed into a list of purely notable people who have been compared to him then it would make a good merge. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal

User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal speedy deleted and even blocked by NicholasTurnbull. Sheer censorship. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCZenz (talk • contribs) at 02:29, 2006 April 5 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a project where some are entitled to censor those they disagree with. No rule allows deleting valuable content from others' user space. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User space is explicitly given to us for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. Please explain how this was valuable content - that is, how it would have contributed to the advancement of the encyclopedia. It appears to be merely a pair politically motivated userbox templates. At first glance, they do appear to be exactly the kind of "divisive and inflammatory" templates which the new speedy-deletion criterion was created to address. Rossami (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The speedy-deletion criterion for divisive and inflammatory user boxes is for user box templates, not for the user subpages. There are userboxes in the main space endorsing parties that are accused of having lead a war of aggression, how should asking for a trial be more inflammatory than that? Picking opinions you do not like and delete them is censorship. I am completely ok if all user boxes are deleted, but keeping some and removing others even from the user space is obscene. ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 06:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Userboxes bore me but even I'd've deleted that one if I came across it. If there are similarly unnecessary userboxes around, tag them for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on MfD. They've already been restored because T1 does not apply, as they are in userspace and not templatespace. Also, none of the endorsements above seem to address the deletion, rather focusing on opinion about userboxes. DRV is not *fD. My opinion? Delete 'em. But they can't be speedied under T1, sorry. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted User opinion is fine, but tendentious phrasing and resource hogging (loading up 20 full-sized graphics just to make a not very original point) is out of line. I'd have no problem with "This user opposed the Iraq war" or "This user believes the Iraq war was an illegal invasion" in the usual format. We've already been through the discussion about images vs text in userboxes. ProhibitOnions 12:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • None of the pictures was loaded up by me, they are all used on the people's article pages. The pages have been recreated as there was clearly no legitimation to delete them, and all those who set their personal preferences higher than wiki policy by supporting the deletion here set a bad light on themselves. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Copyrighted pictures can be eligible for the "fair use" exemption based on context. They can be legal in one context and not in another. For the most part, use in articles qualifies for the "educational use" clause. User-space does not qualify for that clause. The fact that the pictures were loaded by someone else and are in use appropriately in the article-space has no real relevance to whether or not they are allowable under copyright laws in the user-space. Regardless of how the rest of this discussion turns out, please replace all the copyvio pictures with public domain versions. Let's keep this debate focused on a single issue, please. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• For the first one (the one with all the pictures): Keep deleted. It's a userspace page using non-free images. Clearly against WP copyright policy. For the second one (just text): List on MfD per BorgHunter. Powers 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely the copyvio should be resolved by either deleting the image or removing the reference? If an article contains a non-free image, that article would not be deleted for the crimes of its contained image, so why should it be different in userspace? MartinRe 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, it probably should. However, the page is completely useless without the images. I tried to remove the images and all it left was a contextless assertion talking about "these people" without any indication of who they were. I tried replacing the images with names but I don't know who they all are. =) Powers 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the fair use images. The ones I left are valid in userspace. Not all of them were fair use. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on MfD WP:NOT is not a valid reason under WP:CSD, and it should not be allowed to become a de facto one, which it will, if incorrectly speeding is allowed to be justified by WP:NOT or WP:SNOW. DRV is about process, not content, and this was not a valid speedy, so should be relisted. MartinRe 14:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletion clearly violated policy. Shame on those who use deletion powers to censor opinions they do not agree with. De mortuis... 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There is no reason to censor that user page. Raphael1 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely right. But he doesn't need a template to express his opinion. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and block the troll again. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Troll"? I would assume good faith here. He seems to be acting in good faith but has very strong opinions. "Again"? His block log is empty. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Tony Sidaway, you are incivil. Wikipedia policy is no personal attacks. You cannot block someone again who has never been blocked. De mortuis... 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't get to accuse admins of who are trying to keep Wikipedia an encyclopaedia of censorship and then complain about personal attacks, sorry. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • He was singled out and three of his boxes were deleted, even from his user space and ignoring a decision that had already been made. That is censorship and bullying, and asking to block someone again who has never been blocked is throwing mud on him in order to make him look bad. You should apologize. De mortuis... 15:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • No. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies to User:ROGNNTUDJUU! for my ill-informed and inexcusable personal attack. I have not changed my opinion on the gross inappropriateness of the items concerned. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and for one to mess with Deletion Review because someone has a different political stance is to prove how little one's opinion should hold in such a naturally unpolitically-biased discussion. Chris M. 14:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, or keep deleting. Find somewhere else to posture. Wikipedia may be free and tolerant, but it is not for soapboxing. And also observe that the editor has reinserted images that have plainly incorrect copyright status. You don't rely on the tag, since the tag can be wrong. -Splash^talk 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • All images have been looked at for copyright status. If you have any issues, bring it up, but that has nothing to do with deletion. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Disruptive use of userspace to circumvent T1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not "circumventing t1", this is what wikipedia policy advises people to do: keep controversial opinions to their user space. There is no way you can censor that. De mortuis... 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes there is, actually. Userspace is not sacred, and does not 'belong' to the user whose name heads it. Wide latitude is granted, but not infinite latitude, particularly when it is being used to circumvent T1 as Sjakkalle observes. -Splash^talk 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The rule currently is that users are even encouraged to move controversial boxes to the user space. There is npo legitimation to remove anything there, and T1 does not apply. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and strongly encourage the new users here to read up on policy. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It is important for me to say first that WP:NOT truly is NOT a CSD, as suggested above, and the deletions were improper. However, given my long experience at MfD, I can't see such soapboxery from a new user standing any chance at that forum, so I will follow the suggestion of WP:SNOW in this case. Xoloz 16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I also agree that it would probably fail MfD, but if SNOW is used to justify invalid speedies, then WP:NOT becomes a de facto CSD criteria, which I believe is important not to happen. MartinRe 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, and your concern is a valid one; however, a userpage of a "newbie with an apparent agenda" is, in my view, probably the worst possible case on which to make such a stand for due process. If this matter concerned any other type of page, or if the editor had a record of a few constructive edits, I'd be right with you. Truth is, though, such userpages routinely show up on MfD for 5-7 days, thanks to the backlog, get three or so delete votes without much discussion, and are deleted with little fuss. The opinions expressed here constitute about 100 times more consideration than such a page usually merits, so I'm comfortable it has had more than a fair hearing. Xoloz 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm a great believer in consistancy in process, so in some ways a case like this is the best one to point it out. Wasn't one of the pivotol free speech cases in the US decided when the speech was "distasteful" to many? If WP:NOT is not a CSD, then it should apply in all cases, and not "WP:NOT is NOT a CSD (except in 'bad' cases)" Ouch, my head hurts with all the NOT is not confusion :) Regards, MartinRe 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply posted at Martin's talk, since I sense a kindred spirit, and we may be chatting about this for a while. :) Xoloz 18:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Query CSD T1 allows speedy deletion only of divisive templates. But at what point does a user subpage (which may be transcluded) become a template? Transcluded once? Transcluded by someone other than the user? (with or without the explicit permission of the user?) Transcluded widely with the clear intention that it was designed to be used that way? To me, only the last option would pass the duck test to class it as a template, and a potentially valid deletion under CSD T1. However, this subpage has very few (three if I remember) references, so doesn't justify calling it a template in my view. And if it ain't a template, it can't be deleted under CSD T1. MartinRe 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no rule whatsoever that allows deletion of userfied boxes because you disagree with them. ROGNNTUDJUU! 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically: "User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." jacoplane 16:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and delete the rest of the userspace documents in addition. Don't assist in the goals of the encyclopedia, aren't productive and isn't what this site is about at all. Why not use a Myspace account..? -Zero^Talk 16:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• The user has still not answered my original question. How do these two pages contribute to the creation of the encyclopedia? Without such explanation, this appears to be a misuse of userspace. My position is slowly hardening to delete. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatic keep deleted: I've never been a part of userbox partisanship, but these are such a blatant violation of our goals here as an encyclopedia that no other solution makes sense. T1 is to be used with caution, especially where disputed, but this kind of textbook case where a page has been created and recreated for the sole purpose of divisiveness and deliberate inflammation is exactly what it's there for. I say recreated because this is also that: a recreation of deleted content from the template namespace (see Special:Undelete/Template:User_against_Iraq_war_of_aggression and Special:Undelete/Template:User_GOP_criminal), and notice now that between the template and userspace recreation, this usr has now recreated it seven times each. I'm going to go redelete them and warn him. Dmcdevit·t 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  Moving userboxes to user space if there is controversy about them in main template space is exactly what the current policy encourages to do, and other users motivated him to do so. You are acting out of process and should be warned yourself. De mortuis... 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. This is an encyclopedia and these have nothing to do with that. Rx StrangeLove 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Contributes nothing to the building of an encyclopedia, which anything in userspace is supposed to do. -M^ask 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Pretty much everything's been said. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per above. I shall restrain myself from saying anything more lest I beat WP:CIVIL into a bloody pulp. Lord Bob 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, pretty much nothing left to say that hasn't been said. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: While archiving the talk page for WP:CSD, I found this edit by ROGNNTUDJUU!. It appears to be a rejection of the use of userspace to circumvent the deletion of divisive templates. I am confused by the apparent inconsistency with the sentiments expressed above. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• To be fair, that was way back on March 5, apparently his third whole day editing here. Evidently, his position has evolved and changed a lot in the last few weeks. Nhprman 00:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anti-american propaganda. Unfortunately, it's turning into such more and more. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. These do not help the encyclopedia at all, and one of them is potentially libellous, which should ask for nuking off the database. Also, if Tony and Splash agree on deleting something, it must be really horrible. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Deletion - This is a divisive political userbox designed to provoke debate, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The creator of the box has reverted admins' deletion several times, and has rebuffed numerous friendly attempts to explain WP policies. Side note: Deleting all political- and belief-themed boxes would end this foolish game, and not just in this case. Nhprman 00:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote one: administrator Mike_Rosoft had created the pages in order to move them from the main space. As it is not allowed at all to delete user subpages because you do not like the opinions expressed on them he unblocked the pages after they had been deleted and unblocked. The first admin who had deleted gave in. Now another one deleted. Sidenote two: I agree with your sidenote. But then go ahead and do not single out certain ones. De mortuis... 01:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. No part of writing an encyclopaedia. David | Talk 09:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• The speedy deletion is invalid; the page doesn't meet the criteria, because:
  1. These pages are not templates, so speedy deletion criteria for templates do not apply;
  2. Speedy deletion of a page doesn't automatically make any its re-creation a speedy candidate, it must meet speedy deletion criteria by itself; and
  3. Content which has been moved to user space (or re-created there) is excluded from being a candidate for speedy deletion as a re-post.

Undelete, candidates for speedy undeletion. Please bring it to WP:MFD if you must. - Mike Rosoft 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the new evidence, do not bother with undeletion unless a legitimate user requests it. - Mike Rosoft 08:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, the argument that user space is for "encyclopedic content" is specious. There is not one bit of encyclopedic content at all in anyone's user space. Not yours, not mine, not Jimbo's, no one's. User space is for information about the user. Nothing that anyone has to say about themselves has any bearing on the encyclopedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose decision - Undelete - Userspace is Users space. Do not remove from there. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong bad endorse deletion for great justice per Jacoplane's logic. Netscott 11:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anti-anyone propaganda. --kingboyk 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Also please note that ROGNNTUDJUU has been permabanned as a sockpuppet of De mortuis... per WP:ANI. Thatcher131 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I find there is a lot of heat here, but little light. What this discussion needs is pointers to the original discussion(s) that occurred prior to when the fiels were first removed. What, if any, warnings were given? What, exactly, were the criteria used to justify the deletion?
  • Up above, IIUC, it is stated that files linked to images, uploaded by others, and that linkage was (may have been?) a violation of the liscensing under which those images were uploaded. The argument That sounds fishy to me. Assuming an image he found elsewhere on the wikipedia could be re-used in his user space sounds like an honest mistake. What if any warnings were given to him?
    • User:Rossami wrote: "For the most part, use(of images) in articles qualifies for the "educational use" clause. User-space does not qualify for that clause." I hope Rossami, or someone else can explain this comment. Rossami also wrote: "User space is explicitly given to us for the purpose of building the encyclopedia" -- I find these two positions inconsistent. If user space is given to us for building the encyclopedia, then using ROGNN..'s images on his personal page should be assumed to be for educational use. Now maybe ROGNN..'s use somehow disqualified it for educational use. Fine. Where is the warning? -- Geo Swan 14:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • This is a bit of a tangent from the core discussion so I've attempted to answer the question on your user page. As for the warning, it's right at the bottom of every edit screen. "Content must not violate any copyright and ..." Rossami (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse all such deletions WP:NOT etc --Doc ^ask? 19:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per WP:NOT as above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Buxton University

I created this article because a anon. user was removing it from List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. However, it was brought to my attention that it was deleted over a year ago. Yet, it seems that it was deleted as spam/ad/unverifible. My sources are two state governments and three news agencies.

Moreover, the "school's website" is instantdegrees.com and attempts to "intimidate" (as a news report noted) anyone who makes the connection between instantdegrees.com and Buxton. Hence, I think it is important to "undelete" and it is notable enough. "Instantdegrees.com" gets almost 5,000 hits and "buxton university" gets only 700. However, since this fraud has been reported in various government and news groups I think it is worthy of wikipedia inclusion. Arbusto 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Allow re-creation. Call it a consumer service. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation and recommend that a redirect be set up from Instantdegree.com to Buxton. JoshuaZ 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I think there are issues here with the validity of this for an article. Instantdegrees.com has an alexa of close to 300,000 [67], which hardly seems very prominent. Buxton is largely unknown and gets almost no google hits [68]- and the hits it does get are often things like William Buxton, University of London. The previous AfD raised serious questions about verifiability that look still to be valid- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buxton_University. The article as it stands includes five lines that state and restate how Buxton is not accredited, followed by a long description of news reports of people who have bought diplomas from the school. The question this raises is what else is there to say about this? If it is just a scam, and a fairly unknown scam at that, why do we need the article? While I don't support advertising, I also don't support doing an attack page on a non-entity. -- JJay 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think this article is very helpful and can be expanded (I wrote it minutes ago and your claiming it "can't"). If someone puts Buxton as their university on an job application or a webpage it would be nice for the largest online encyclopedia to have information about it. This is important since Buxton's name is similiar to a respected school. Also the comments in the AfD are not relevant because this article does not read like an unverfied ad. These are three news reports and two government sources. Arbusto 03:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Arbustoo seems to be our local expert on unaccredited institutions. If he thinks it is notable, I'm inclined to give him a few weeks to see what he can put together on it. JoshuaZ 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Here's a Washington Post article about fraud from 2004 surrounding a "Doctor" who's degree was from Buxton University.[69] In that article the Post wrote "repeated Web searches and several calls to overseas operators did not turn up a listing for a Buxton University." Wikipedia should include information about Buxton as a resource for those that want to know. Arbusto 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Allow re-creation. I was the one who nominated this on AfD last time, but I did so hesitantly after having attempted a rewrite. I would also like to ask for a history undelete of my version. I don't know if there was anything in it that may still be useful and lacking from Arbustoo's version, but it might be worth checking (I haven't kept an offline version). At some point in the future, I would like to see a consolidation of diploma mill articles, and more focus on the businesses and people behind the mills (which are often just temporary façades), but until then I think it is reasonable to collect the material in individual articles. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Wikipedia's articles on diploma mill articles also function as a service for consumers and as a counterweight to all the webspamming produced by the mills themselves. Tupsharru 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation. Current article is an encyclopaedic treatment of a degree mill with reasonable external coverage. Just zis Guy you know? 10:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation. Per Arbusto's 05:24, 5 April 2006 comment. If this was ONLY because people are looking for info on it, then I think that would be reason enough, because why isn't wikipedia the source of this info? But it's not just about that, it also has quite a few references. Chris M. 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation per Arbusto and JoshuaZ. Thryduulf 14:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete -- having got access to the text, this is useful information about three "fake" sources of degrees, which someone might well look up. The article also gives sources and substantiation, at leats enough to counter prima-facie pleas of innocence. -- Simon Cursitor 08:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow recreation although sadly anyone smart enough to find this on WP is probably not going to fall for an instant degree - I'd wager my MA in "Life Experience" on it. Eusebeus 10:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation and recommend a redirect per JoshuaZ, others. Samaritan 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• allow recreation for this please Yuckfoo 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

4 April 2006

Template:Good article

This template debate was closed and deleted by User:Raul654, but I don't think there is a consensus to delete. The final numerical results stand at 32 for delete, 28 for keep, and 4 for neutral/comment, so it should have been closed as no consensus. The differing opinions were all spread throughout the discussion, with little domination of keep or delete in any place. -- King of Hearts ^talk 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• IT was deleted because the template flatly violates policy, and the people who created it (and voted not to delete it) don't seem to care (and have not, in point of fact, even tried to offer an explination for why it doesn't violate policy) Raul654 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine, and I'm voting with you, too. Next time, though, I think it would be a good idea if you included that rationale in the closing. Xoloz 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Raul654, what policy are you referring to? Cedars 07:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Keeping metadata out of articles in order to make our database useful to re-users. Wikipedia "inside joke" and inside reference makes our database harder to use and less useful for reusers. Raul654 08:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/kd The only point of process with which I quibble is above. In discussions as extensive as this, with allegations of vote-stacking, a thorough examination of the arguments and their merits is absolutely necessary. Based on his remark, I have faith Raul did this. Making that reasoning explicit makes life easier for everyone, though. Xoloz 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (keep deleted) as per Raul. Template is supported neither by policy nor by WP:GA. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I was going to protest because I mistakenly thought this was {{GA}}. Yes, this template goes against policy. Good articles already get a note on their talk pages. They don't need a pretty icon on the top right corner like featured articles do because they're not quite at featured article status yet. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I've reviewed the text of the debate and I see charges of meatpuppetry together with some evidence of vote packing. While I personally favor vote packing, I permit admins discretion to discount it. John Reid 05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, admin weighed the balance of the argument very well. It used the wrong picture in any case. If it ends up recreated, at least use the correct picture, i.e. Image:Autofellatio.jpg. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; I missed the TfD, but agree with Raul's decision on this one. Number of "votes" isn't everything. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 11:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with Xoloz that Raul could have provided a rationale before doing something controversial, even if it's the right decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Admittedly I'm deferring to Raul's expertise here. But decorating articles with meta-content doesn't seem like a good idea. If not nipped in the bud, I foresee a rich growth of smiley-faces and bronze medallions and annoying little pastel boxes, and all the edit-warring accoutrements thereof... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Xoloz. JoshuaZ 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/Keep deleted per Xoloz --FloNight ^talk 17:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. I personally liked the template, but I agree with Dpbsmith. {{featured article}} was controversial, even though it is part of a stable area of Wikipedia policy; Good articles still needs some fine-tuning, so it is not appropiate to have an article-namespace template for it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• What Xoloz said. —Encephalon 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it dead. — Apr. 5, '06 [03:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Endorse deletetion Template was correctly deleted, but agree with Xoloz about a more explicit rationale in the closing statement. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, or if you're a huge fan of process, undelete it and then re-delete it per CSD:G4, because Template:Good, a similar template, was previously deleted through TFD. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, support reactivation of template when GA is approved, especially if approved soon. I disagree with Raul that supporters were not attentive to process. Myself and at least one other changed our votes to neutral from keep on reconsidering the merits of the process argument (clarified) and we both stated so. Further, I believe Raul has stated on GA discussions that he does not see a need for the GA project. Further, a number of supporters noted that process has not always been an issue with allowing very helpful tools to remain. That is a process argument. (I disagree with that point.) I wonder if many GA supporters know about the discussion here. (Since I'm fairly new here, a few months, and wonky in general but not wonked out on your policies, I'm going to post a note about this process on the GA talk page. Note: TheGrappler explained on my talk page that it is ok to post a comment on the GA project page and the distinct between that and vote stacking.) If the GA project is approved soon, I strongly propose that this reconsideration process be reversed and re-initiated with a clear call out to the GA project pages. I think the handling of this decision process could be much more transparent and supportive of dialog. I hope the approval of GA project and its utility has not been harmed by this process. --Vir 06:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps. To address the issue of principle of no meta-data in main namespace, or whatever: I do believe this was addressed in comments by supporters. This is another reason this issue needs further working out. I noted in my original comment on the template discussion that a GA template tag is useful both to readers and to reviewers (very very much so to the later). To expand: Savvy repeat readers and visitors will come to realize that many Wikipedia articles are quite incomplete. The GA tag (and perhaps a more elaborate set of evaluation tags) would be helpful to informed readers about extent of articles development. The GA tag would be especially helpful to teachers, students and researchers. It is not useless meta-data to readers unless you regard FA as such. Perhaps the "Good" label needs an explanation or alteration to something like "reviewed." Bottom line: The same logic that allows the Featured Article tag to be used, applies equally to GA. And both FA & GA tags should be used. --Vir 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn, restore template. Raul654's actions were very much out-of-line as there was clearly no consensus. Cedars 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with quibble - I believe Raul654 acted in good faith. The participants of WikiProject:Good articles were themselves very split on the issue. Given its relationship with policy, a template like this needs consensus to implement, not delete. However, if any such consensus does emerge (not limited to the WikiProject itself), I hope that this vote and this deletion review are not then used as "evidence" that it should be deleted again. Further, Raul made a decision based on policy, not on vote numbers: this is perfectly acceptable since TfD is not a vote. However, in sensitive cases like this, I believe an explanation of actions would be courteous and would have dealt with the accusation that Raul acted in bad faith. TheGrappler 12:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• 'Question motivation of deleter - I don't want to see the template restored, but wonder why Raul654 hasn't also deleted {{featured article}} if he is concerned just with applying policy. He has made it clear that he hates the GA idea and wants it deleted, and I would suggest he should have left it to someone impartial to close the discussion, which clearly was not in favour of deleting. Worldtraveller 17:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I fought tooth-and-nail against the FA template and was virtually alone in my belief [70] If someone nominated template:featured article for deletion, I'd vote to delete it in a heart-beat. Raul654 21:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

3 April 2006

Elliott Frankl

The article of Elliott Frankl was deleted by User:Thryduulf final vote was 8 to Keep and 8 to delete (although a few of the deletes appear to be sockpuppets and 5 of the 8 deleted votes were posted when the article was a stub and not complete. All the information is accurate and most but not all shows a source. The ONLY person that was attempting to say this information is false is user pm_shef who is the son of Alan Shefman, the candidate that is running against Frankl in the 2006 municipal election. Being from Vaughan myself I am sure pm_shef knows everything was true in the article but will do anything to get his fathers opponents article deleted, he did the same thing with a few other articles--Eyeonvaughan 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Speedy relist--Eyeonvaughan 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete Without sources or references it is impossible for outsiders to fact check this article. It look to me to be original research Seabhcán 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment so take out the info. that does not currently have a source and relist with the info. that does have a source, I looked it over and most info had a source.--Eyeonvaughan 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure/kd' All but two of the keep "votes" were clearly disqualifiable within standard closer's discretion. Additionally, the weights of the arguments and notability guidelines clearly support removal. This decision is right on merit, and consistent with process. Xoloz 19:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, excellent AfD closure, Thryduulff, this was definitely a tough one to close. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Most of the keep votes came from a contingent of Vaughanians (?) There seems to have been an effort lately to generate multiple articles on Vaughan politics, which can be adequately covered in the main Vaughan article provided reliable sources, NPOV, etc. Municipal officeholders rarely notable, candidates not.Thatcher131 21:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• The process was followed correctly. As has been pointed out repeatedly, unelected municipal candidates do not merit articles just for being candidates, per WP:BIO, and the keep contingent did not present a sufficiently compelling case that Frankl could be deemed notable for other reasons. And WP policy quite explicitly allows votes that appear to be agenda-based (e.g. people who've never edited Wikipedia before suddenly showing up with strong opinions in an AFD discussion, or votes with no rationale offered) to be excluded. AFD is not a raw numbers vote; it's a debate in which the numbers are a factor, but not in and of themselves the defining one. Plus the whole thing is quite clearly part of a determined campaign to skew WP coverage of local politics in Vaughan in favour of a political lobby group's decidedly POV agenda, which is not permitted under WP rules. And that's not even getting into the blatantly false accusations of bias and/or vandalism that the Vaughan Watch contingent continually makes against anybody who dares edit so much as a misplaced comma from their approved versions. Or the fact that they've already attempted to do an end run around this process by recreating the article twice today alone. Or the fact that they've actually resorted to citing Wikipedia mirrors as sources for the disputed assertions (per this edit). Endorse deletion; I've seen no compelling reason not to. Bearcat 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I have no ties to Vaughan (or Canada, for that matter). The simple fact of the matter is that this individual clearly fails WP:BIO. An examination of edit histories of this article and other afd'd articles related to Vaughan reveals obvious sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Having lived there, I do have ties to the "City above Toronto". I still think this artricle should stay deleted. I'd think the same for Toronto candidates, and indeed, any municipal political candidates of similar prominence. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The Vaughan soap opera rolls on. · rodii · 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll go further. I ^{not really} think we should blackhole Vaughan--delete and protect all Vaughan-related pages, including user pages, until after this election, and hope if any of them are motivated to come back, that it's as constructive contributors rather than political warriors. · rodii · 21:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Bearcat. I'm not involved in the whole Vaughan debacle, but I have been keeping an eye on it. This is an election candidate, not a notable person. Despite vocal support from many editors who are very involved with Vaughan politics articles, there is little support for this kind of article. Closing admin could have relisted for a clearer consensus, but the decision was right. Mangojuice 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Relisting AfD or Redoing Article I agree with Mangojuice about the lack of consensus. It's a travesty that this article has been removed because of Pm_shef and his pal Bearcat's personal agenda. Sure they'll deny it; but Pm_shef's father Alan Shefman is Frankl's opponent and the incumbent councillor. This is his clever campaign to sabotage his opponents, and I'm disgusted that almost none of you are doing anything about it.
• The arbitration committee has ruled that people who are related to the subject in question cannot edit. All of these issues that are occurring are happening because Pm_shef and his partner Bearcat wish to delete portions of articles and indeed entire articles to suit there purposes. These edit wars start in order to revert Pm_shef's whitewashing. Finally, as has been cited, the article is very accurate. While not every portion of the article is cited by some objective source (can't be the newspaper articles, can't be the individual's website, according to Pm_shef and Bearcat) the article itself has 6 or 7 citations, much more than other articles. It meets wikipedia's standard. All of this talk of "no evidence" has been brought up by Pm_shef; he is not an objective source for research. Again, this article should be relisted on the AfD, and I'm hoping there is a consensus for that. VaughanWatch 11:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC) So again, let's relist the AfD and have a more reasoned debate.
  • I have no personal agenda in the matter except to ensure that Wikipedia's rules and standards are followed, and I have no personal relationship with pm_shef whatsoever. You are to retract both of those false claims immediately. It has nothing to do with wanting to sabotage anybody — exactly how many times am I going to have to tell you that I have no connection whatsoever to anybody remotely connected to Vaughan politics before you realize that I have no connection whatsoever to anybody remotely connected to Vaughan politics? And for the record, I did not overrule any verifiable sources in the article — there weren't any verifiable sources to overrule. You guys didn't even attempt to cite any sources until somebody hit on the clever but invalid ploy of citing Wikipedia mirrors as sources. You didn't cite any newspaper articles. You didn't cite his campaign website — I had to find his campaign site by myself on a Google search. And guess what - it doesn't even make some of the disputed claims. Bearcat 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is nth time that either VaughanWatch or Eyeonvaughan or one of their group has accused me of bias. Each time, I ask for proof, or even one single example of a biased edit that I've made. Each time, they aren't able to. Above, VaughanWatch accuses me of "Whitewashing" and starting the edit wars, yet all of my edits have been to the betterment of Wiki, none of been PoV, and none have been unverifiable, unlike the vast majority of the article in question. Furthermore, I have always admitted right off the bat that I'm Alan Shefman's son, that was never a secret, and still, I have always edited NPOV while enduring the Personal Attacks. I've sat through attacks on my character, on my charitable work, and through accusations that everything I do hear is biased. It's a shame that they make these accusations, dragging my name through the mud, without ever presenting a shred of proof. pm_shef 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as Xoloz said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. It's is not worth revisiting an article that doesn't even come close to meeting the verifiability policy. As nearly as I can tell very few revisions even attempt to cite sources, and the few that do use sources such as www.elliottfrankl.com . Dpbsmith (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. nn, due process. `'mikka (t) 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a better option than deleting it entirely. Frankl is more notable for his work in the sports world than in the political world. He was in the top 40 under 40, which is quite an achievement. He's the head of a sports marketing firm that he started as a teen, and an agent to many stars. He's the head of sponsorship for the International Hockey Hall of Fame http://www.ihhof.com/aboutContact.htm and an official agent for the NHL. So if the article can be redone, and the non-provable stuff omitted, that would be fine, if there's consensus. VaughanWatch 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You get one vote, not as many as you want. If you'd like to reformat one of your two comments in this discussion as a non-voting comment, that's fine, but you cannot have them counted as two separate votes. Bearcat 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The vote has been modified. VaughanWatch 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Again, to respond to Bearcat: the notion of defending Wikipedia's rules is commendable. But this defence is forceful, arbitrary, and assumes bad faith.
  You think you can remove opposition to your and Pm_shef's campaign by bullying your opponents. And you assume that the editors have bad faith - here's what you said recently: "I believe that you're citing it in an attempt to discredit Susan Kadis because of your personal agenda against her."
  If you're really interested in an objective encyclopedia, you'd stop being an accomplice to Pm_shef's personal agenda to a) glorify his allies (Susan Kadis, Mario Racco, Alan Shefman, Mario Ferri) and b) remove his opposition (Elliott Frankl, Yehuda Shahaf, Vaughan Watch). As long as Pm_shef is on his campaign, there will be a counter-campaign. As long as there is an unjust, unfair and corrupt use of power, there will be those opposed to it. VaughanWatch 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • FOR. THE. LAST. GODDAMNED. TIME.: I HAVE NO CAMPAIGN HERE EXCEPT TO ENSURE THAT WIKIPEDIA RULES ARE FOLLOWED. That means WP:BIO. It means WP:WEB. It means WP:NPA. It means WP:V. I do not know User:pm_shef, and am not participating in any agenda except enforcing the fucking rules. And I'm not assuming anything, either — you've already acted in bad faith by repeatedly making false accusations about other editors acting in a biased manner, in defiance of repeated good faith requests by multiple editors to discuss the issue in a civil and productive manner. I'm not enforcing the rules arbitrarily, either — if I have to keep after you guys with a stick, it's because you guys are the ones who keep breaking the rules. Bearcat 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So enforce the fucking rules Bearcat. Don't let Pm_shef get away with skirting your warnings. VaughanWatch 00:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There's nothing to enforce. He hasn't skirted anything. Bearcat 19:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Users reading the above may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan. Thryduulf 11:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Non-notable suburban municipal candidate, not verifiable. Most of the keep votes were from sockpuppets or people whose only edits have been on Vaughan-related pages and were quite rightly discounted by the closer (Thryduulff). Goes against consensus reached earlier after a number of AfDs that incumbent councillors should not have articles, nevermind unelected candidates. Bearcat is to be commended for his patience in attempting to deal with this mess. Luigizanasi 05:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC
  • This is patience to you? Bearcat clearly has lost any objective ability to manage this encyclopedia. VaughanWatch 08:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• What Sjakkalle said. —Encephalon 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Since Bearcat is so evidently eager to enforce the rules, will he finally enforce this one, from WP:NOT, under "Wikipedia is not a soapbox": Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so."? VaughanWatch 09:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I've pointed out to you before: I did address that rule with pm_shef. Unlike you guys when a rule breach was discussed with you, pm_shef responded respectfully and politely, and took the advice seriously and in good faith. Furthermore, unlike 3RR or NPA, it isn't a rule that one can be banned for violating — it's one where the limit of an administrator's authority in the matter is to remind the offending user that there's a rule. Bearcat 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid closing rational given with some suspect keep votes dicounted. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The only person discounting those votes is Pm_shef and his administrative assistant. If you disagree, you are labelled a "sockpuppet". VaughanWatch 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Everybody in this discussion has viewed the votes as discountable with the exception of those who have a vested interest in this article. It has nothing to do with what side of the debate they happened to support, and everything to do with WP:SOCK. And re: "administrative assistant", you have been advised more than once to can the personal attacks. They stop now. Bearcat 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted. Elected to national office? Notable. Runinng for local office? Not notable. Valid AfD decision, per policy and guidelines, no new evidence presented of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse relist with protection I am not involved in the disputes of the many articles involving people from Vaughan region, I contributed to article because, Frankl is very notable within the sports business industry his candidacy in the municipal election is irrelevant in terms of being notable enough for a article, despite the false claims that one wiki user keeps mentioning everything in the article in accurate including Frankl serving on the board of the International Hockey Hall of Fame. Frankl was listed on the International Hockey Hall of Fame article since he was elected in Nov. 2005 until one wiki user started vandalising the IHHOF article as well. This is the same wiki user that has been vandalising this article as well as many others. I wonder if it has anything to do with that this wiki user is the son of Frankl’s opponent in the municipal election?--JohnnyCanuck 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • All you guys needed to do was provide a link to a page (not a Wikipedia mirror) which stated that Frankl holds a position on the board of directors. Even his own campaign page doesn't say he holds a position on the board of directors — it just says he works with them. But no matter how many times you guys were asked to provide a source, all you could do was continually assert that the IHHOF just hadn't updated their web page yet. That's an unverifiable claim. Nobody asserted that the claim was false — but as it stands, it's unverifiable. If you want it included, show a source. Bearcat 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine. Remove the board of directors reference, and any other reference that isn't definitely verifiable. Would you and others agree to a shortened, 100% verifiable article on Elliott Frankl? And is that a consensus? VaughanWatch 23:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If it is also NPOV and verifiably proves he is notable enough for an article then yes it would be welcome. The main reason the article was deleted was because there was no verifiable evidence he was notable - read WP:BIO for what constitutes notability. Thryduulf 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. I agree, although I doubt very much that he would meet the WP:BIO criteria. I personally get fifteen times as many google hits (661) as Frankl (42), I have run for public office, I am a published author, and was recently quoted in a CBC news story, and have been on the board of a number of organizations that should have Wikipedia articles (which I do not intend to write given my personal involvement), but I don't think that any of that makes me notable enough to have a wikipedia article. What I would like to see is news stories or other verifiable evidence to show that he is notable in hockey circles. I haven't found any. So, Mr. DeBuono, instead of attacking Bearcat's integrity, you would be much better advised to devote your energies to finding evidence of Frankl's notability and presenting it here. Luigizanasi 01:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • If every unverifiable claim in the old article were removed, the only claim to notability in the article would be the fact that he's a candidate in the municipal council elections. And has been repeatedly pointed out, unelected candidates in municipal council elections are not notable per WP:BIO. Bearcat 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Bearcat responded to the wiki statement "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so," by writing: "...unlike 3RR or NPA, it isn't a rule that one can be banned for violating — it's one where the limit of an administrator's authority in the matter is to remind the offending user that there's a rule."
  What's the point of having a rule if it's not enforced?
  And why did you write that you have a campaign to ensure wikipedia rules are followed, and said that "It means WP:BIO. It means WP:WEB. It means WP:NPA. It means WP:V." and not *enforce* NPA in Pm_shef's case? VaughanWatch 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not aware that user:Pm shef has made any personal attacks. If you have evidence that he has then I suggest you present it as part of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyeonvaughan. Thryduulf 23:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf that's exactly the point. Pm_shef doesn't need to make an actual edit that is serving his purposes. And he doesn't need to make personal attacks. The wiki policy says the he cannot EDIT any article that he is personally involved in. He was been warned about this by user:Bearcat. But Bearcat hasn't gone far enough. How this boy can have the audacity of both discrediting and removing his father's opposition from what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia is disgusting. Worst of all are those who are complicit. VaughanWatch 00:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Nobody is complicit in anything. I'd be the first one to editblock pm_shef if he crossed the line, trust me. But as things stand, Frankl doesn't belong in a neutral encyclopedia until you guys can actually provide sources to verify that he meets the WP:BIO criteria of notability. If you had put even a fraction as much energy into finding legitimate sources for the article as you've been putting into whining about the family connections of an editor who hasn't committed any bannable offenses, the article might well have been keepable — but no, instead you launched a POV edit war over unverifiable claims that even Frankl's own campaign website doesn't make. Needless to say, that doesn't make me terribly inclined to trust your judgment. Bearcat 01:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • First off, you'll notice that I have not edited anything related to Frankl's candidacy is the election, only things related to your other claims that are unverifiable. Furthermore, if I were to be banned for editing things that I have personal involvement in, then VaughanWatch would have to be also, as his site makes him inherently involved. The fact is though, this is another example of you guys making completely baseless accusations against me with no proof! pm_shef 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Re-doing Article As Thryduulf, Luigizanasi, and VaughanWatch have said, the article should be re-done so that it meets WP:BIO. Frankl, and his company particularly, have been mentioned in many hockey-related sites, and this is his real claim to notability. A google search for his company, Sports Rep Marketing, shows 227 hits. His company is mentioned among the great suppliers at CrossOff International's site, along with Wayne Gretzky Authentic, Jordana Sports International Inc and Great North Road (Bobby Orr). Other awards for the company can be found at these admittedly biased sites: 1 and 2. So if anyone wants to volunteer to do this, and make a verfiable article, I suggest we do it. Skycloud 02:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that User:Skycloud is a suspected Sockpuppet of User:Leotardo. pm_shef 03:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That is an argument for creating an article on Sports Rep Marketing, not on Frankl. Note that it would then need to meet the criteria established in Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) aka WP:CORP. Luigizanasi 04:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, to clarify, I did not say or imply that the article should be redone. I said I want to see evidence of his notability presented in this current deletion review discussion, right here. None has been presented yet. Until I see verifiable evidence of notability other than his candidacy in the present discussion, my vote for keeping the article deleted stands. Luigizanasi 05:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. With respect, that Google search brings up 64 unique hits for me, which is, like, less than my dog. · rodii · 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am my own personal benchmark for non-notability, and even I get several thousand Google hits. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Luigizanasi. --Ardenn 03:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Page has been marred by vandalism of Pm_shef. Keep it and expand. Poche1 18:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Process Comment: The standard format for these discussions is indented bullets. Please try to stick to that format. It makes following the discussions (and later, closing them) much easier if we can stick to the standard. I've tried to standardize this particular thread. If doing so changed the meaning of your comment, please correct it. Rossami (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Vaughan voters may or may not establish his notability in the fall. Samaritan 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Admin took arguments for deletion v. keep into consideration rather than a raw vote count. Determining concensus for closing was within admin's discretion. -maclean25 03:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not endorse deletion VaughanWatch 11:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Again: you have already cast a vote. You can post additional comments for discussion if need be, but you do not get a second vote. Bearcat 08:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Despite admin making a decision at the time, the decision was not reflective of the notability of the subject. Poche1 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• While you guys have continually asserted that there was some obvious notability criterion that he met but that everybody was failing to see except you, the reality is that a lot of editors in good standing evaluated the claims and legitimately decided that they didn't constitute sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO. DRV is not the place to refight that battle; DRV is about reviewing the process, not the content. Bearcat 08:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• The process was that an article about a successful, up-and-coming businessperson was picked off because of politics. VaughanWatch 11:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• ...up-and-coming.... Bzzt. So, if he's "up and coming", then how does he suddenly become notable enough for an article? --Calton | Talk 11:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this instead: a bunch of editors (possibly even all sockpuppets of one editor, although we won't know for sure until the checkuser results come in), with a vested interest in having their preferred city council candidate deemed more notable and important than the existing city council they had already targeted for deletion, posted an article which consisted almost entirely of unverifiable claims, acted in bad faith by making false accusations of vandalism and 3RR against reputable editors who made any edits whatsoever (even grammar corrections) to "their" article, seized on pm_shef's political connection to discredit the whole thing even after a bunch of disinterested administrators stepped in to mediate (even going so far as to make unsupportable accusations of political connections between pm_shef and those administrators), almost all got editblocked at least once for their inappropriate behaviour, and are still crying foul on political grounds even though virtually every last person who approached it from the objective, disinterested perspective of whether the subject met Wikipedia's objective criteria for inclusion or not considered the article an unqualified delete.

And you still haven't made a real case otherwise; you're still relying on the "because I said so" school of argument. And if you were genuinely concerned about objectivity, you wouldn't have favoured deleting the incumbent council in the first place...except that you've already revealed the applicable POV by claiming that it would be somehow neutral, objective and verifiable for Wikipedia to uncritically describe Vaughan council as the most corrupt city government in Canada.

In summary: a self-aggrandizing political lobby group is gaming the system in the hopes that come the fall, Vaughan voters will look at Wikipedia and decide to vote for Elliott Frankl because an objective encyclopedia considers him more important than any of the existing city council (none of whom have articles of their own). That's what it looks like from where I'm sitting. Bearcat 07:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment of new info. The IHHOF finally updated the directors on their website http://www.ihhof.com/aboutBoard.htm Frankl is infact listed as serving on the board of directors. Some of the delete votes were based on the false information that he wasn't on the board. --JohnnyCanuck 18:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I fail to see how being on a museum's board of directors qualifies an individual on notable. Given that precedent, shouldn't we have articles for all directors of all notable museums? Then maybe expand that to articles on all directors of all notable companies? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment You are missing the point, it was deleted based on the politically motivated false claims from one user which has now been proven to be false.--JohnnyCanuck 19:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment No, it was deleted because it failed (and still fails) WP:BIO notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Johnny: if you look at the AfD debate you'll find that the only delete vote that even might be related to pm_shef's assertion was pm_shef's. Frankl's page was deleted, largely, because municipal election candidates fall short of the WP:BIO guidelines. It wasn't whether or not he was provably on the IHHOF board of directors. Mangojuice 19:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment It proves that he is on the board, the accumulated accomplishments that are being proven one at a time after the vandalisn of one user that claimed everything in the article was false. How does this article not meet notability guidelines? There was a concensus that this article did meet the guidlines if everything was true, which it is, its just a matter of time to prove every little thing detail in the article--JohnnyCanuck 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You've said there was a "consensus," but could you tell me where you got that idea? I think it must have been from Eyeonvaughan's paragraph at the top of this listing, but it doesn't describe what actually happened in the AfD debate. The notability guideline that Elliott Frankl clearly didn't meet was from WP:BIO: "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature", which describes how successful a politician must be to be notable for their achievements as a politician. In practice, important municipal officeholders (in important municipalities) do often have articles, but their notability is not always agreed upon. Municipal election candidates clearly falls well short of this mark. Mangojuice 20:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In light of the IHHOF website's update, I'm willing to revisit the situation in good faith. I've copied the disputed text to User:JohnnyCanuck/Elliott Frankl for review and editing. Two cautions, however: firstly, this does not necessarily mean that the article will definitely be restored; once Johnny's done revising the article, a neutral administrator (not me, for instance) will review the situation and will still retain the right, if they so choose, to conclude that being on the board does not in and of itself constitute sufficient notability for WP inclusion. Secondly, I repeat that information posted to Wikipedia must be verifiable. It is not sufficient to state, as was done repeatedly in this debate, that the information was true but the organization just hadn't updated its website yet, because Wikipedia had no way to confirm that. WP cannot make the claim until we have objective third party confirmation, so I repeat that the process was handled correctly per the available information at the time. The fact that the website has been updated today does not automatically invalidate the fact that the claim was unverifiable yesterday. Bearcat 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews

Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews was deleted by User:Thryduulf. Final vote was 30 to Keep and 38 to Delete. Thryduulf discounted keep votes by new users using the arbitrary threshold of 10 edits. User also included 10 votes to merge in the delete vote. This is neither fair nor wikipedia policy.Seabhcán 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have recounted the vote and the correct figures are Keep:30, Delete:31, Merge:18 (included in Merge is several Merge and/or delete votes, which amount to the same thing) Seabhcán 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As noted by the closer, most of the "merge" "votes" called only for adding a line or two from the article to the Sheen page, not for preserving its substance, and are properly characterized as calling for removal of the long article. Monicasdude 15:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• As I explained in my summary, my final count was "38 delete, 18 keep, "18 merge". The 10 merge votes included in the delete and merge totals were: 1 "Delete or Transwiki to Wikiquote", 5 "Delete or merge" and 4 "Delete and merge", which are all votes to delete. I counted the 1 "Merge or keep" as both a keep and a merge. I did not count the 9 straight "merge" votes as delete or keep. Counting only straight delete, keep and merge votes gives 28 delete/17 keep/9 merge. I don't understand where your figure of 30 to keep comes from. Discounting votes made by anons and very new users is perfectly normal. I did not use a 10-edit threshold, that was what user:Mmx1 used in his unnoficial summary, which I did not refer to. Afd is not a vote, and as I also said in the summary "Many of the reasons given to delete focused on this article, whereas most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" - which doesn't explain why this article is notable enough." I stand by my decision. Thryduulf 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What you describe as 'unrelated' articles, I would describe as precedent.Seabhcán 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • AfD (and indeed DRV) is not bound by precedent. Even if it were you would need to explain why the fact that another article was kept means this one should be. One of the cited articles was the one about Michael Jackson dangling his child over a balcony, which is completely different to an actor giving a series of interviews. This is like saying "there is an article about a fibreglass shark embeded in the roof of a house therefore there needs to be an article on the interview in the local paper about with the vicar's wife who beleives she was abducted by aliens". Thryduulf 16:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem with this process is that the accusation of "non-notable" is impossible to defend. Most of the 'delete' votes were based on notability. Google currently has 1.1 million sites mentioning this topic and 99 newspaper articles. The precedent was that the actions of a US actor may have a dedicated article and was not equilivant to equating sharks with vicars or aliens. It seems to me that there is a dedicated cabal of wikipedians who wish to delete any article which is negative to the US. This is infact being commented on outside of wikipedia, here, for example. I have also encountered this on Iraq related articles. It is a sad development. Seabhcán 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually it's more like 536 hits than a million (YMMV as google indexes settle). While googling for that I noticed we don't have the article Charlie Sheen says in an interview he has slept with 5,000 women (google). I mean as long as we are writing articles about individual interviews. Weregerbil 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • On a purely factual note, your calculation for google hits is false. When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based in principle on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected, not the entire number of hits. A rough (very rough) estimation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. Eusebeus 09:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The number of hits this supposedly "hot" news item gets from a Google News search of "Charlie Sheen" 9/11 is 99. So much for widespread media coverage.Ande B 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thryduulf, especially most of the reasons to keep were along the lines of "an unrelated incident has an article so this should have" Thatcher131 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, good analysis by Thryduulf. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd Many closers discount editors with fewer than 100 edits, a few discount those with fewer than 250 edits. Ten edit threshold is generous, consistent with practice. The AfD is perfectly valid; additionally, deletion is what the article merited, in my judgment. Note also that "merge/delete" votes are technically inconsistent, and can be considered void within closer's discretion. Xoloz 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and immediate undelete This series of interviews is historical for the 9/11 truth movement, people went out and gave a demostration of gratitude, Sheen is refered to as a hero, it is the result of almost 5 years of efforts on the part of the 9/11 truth movement to manage to get the issue to mainstream media in a repectable way, and it is seen as a major historical achievement! There was certanly no consensus for deleteing, and i most strongly object to deleting this accomplishment as non-notable, when every single source in the 9/11 truth movement is refering to it in joy! --Striver 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that deletion review is not about the content of the article, but about the process of deletion. Thryduulf 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Thryduulf stated that the keep voters did not present arguements for keeping this particular article, and that is blatantly inaccurate, there are plenty of arguements for the notability of this particular arguement, undelete now! --Striver 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny thing is, I read "every single source in the 9/11 truth movement is refering to it in joy" as "every single walled gardener is throwing rose petals like there's no tomorrow". But no matter how high they throw them those walls are still too high for anyone else to see, or care. Endorse deletion per above. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • We dont decide how important something is to ourselves, but how notable it is for the people involved in it. I can assure you that i view the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" as a totaly random and non-notable quote, but those in that field find it notable, in the same way do i consider most sport events as totaly non-notable walled gardens. By that same standard, this article is not only notable, but historic, to those millisons of people involved in it, and it is a blatand violations of the policies wikipedia has set to delete it.--Striver 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Thryduulf's sound analysis. -Dawson 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. 38-18-18 is absolutely not a consensus. When a consensus cannot be reached, Wikipedia is supposed to err on the side of inclusionism. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and treating it as one allows for the exclusion of information based on the fact that it supports an unpopular POV - which is exactly what I believe happened here. --Hyperbole 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. First, Thryduulf did not disclose his threshold, but it and his numbers are not the same as the unofficial figures I put up so do not conflate them with what I posted. I was erring on the safe side with the figure of 10 edits, having seen an admin close, counting 15 as the threshold: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/911_Eyewitness. From what Xoloz says, even that's fairly generous. --Mmx1 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Did not participate in the debate and have no opinion about the article but I really can't see any clear consensus here. -- JJay 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion The closing admin counted off the hordes of sockpuppets that came in to vote "keep". A very good thing, not bad. I am afraid that deletion review is again being used to try and save bad articles to promote certain POVs.--Jersey Devil 19:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disregarding likely sockpuppets was appropriate, but after that was done, the resulting AFD didn't even resemble a Wikipedia:Consensus or supermajority. Absent that, the policy is supposed to be to keep the page. Policy wasn't followed here. Sockpuppets aren't the issue. --Hyperbole 20:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't need a supermajority to close in favor of deletion...do us a favor and don't ever close out any Afd's if that your take on policy.--MONGO 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You absolutely do need a consesus or at *least* a supermajority to close in favor of deletion. Reread the appropriate policies, e.g. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. When there is no consensus, a page is kept; supermajority can be substituted for consensus only when a discussion is large enough that consensus is not reasonably possible. --Hyperbole 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I will not argue that the vote constituted a supermajority though it could very well be made; this certainly falls within precedent as far as the percentages fall w.r.t. supermajorities for AFD. However, the outcome is not a vote. It is dependent on a "rough consensus" subject to common sense and the discretion of the closing admin. At the very least you must cede that excluding new and anon users to establish an accurate picture of the opinion of established wiki editors is fair practice, which completely throws off the "vote".--Mmx1 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The vote was 38-18-18 D-K-M by Thryduulf's count and 31-30-18 D-K-M by Seabhcan's. I do think that whether every single new user's opinion should have been completely discounted is a debatable point, but either way, neither of those counts imply a supermajority. Both are clearly no consensus. As general policy, if a significant number of Wikipedians want an article to stay, it should stay. Or, to quote the policy, "When in doubt, keep." --Hyperbole 01:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
            • AfD is not a vote. Thryduulf 10:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• The root article on this topic is now 101kB long. Yet every time a spin off article is created it is listed for deletion. This behaviour of certain users is to promote certain POVs. Seabhcán 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep deleted; I don't really see consensus but this needs to go nevertheless. Kotepho 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletetion absolutely. This is just one interview, neither noteworthy or notable. The article does not explain why it is notable. The fact that this interview occurred isn't even notable in the Charlie Sheen article, compared to when he has had to explain to the press and provide interviews about his involvement with Heidi Fleiss, his drug rehab, or anyone of the movies and TV productions he has been involved in. Thryduulf was right on about his interpretation of the vote.--MONGO 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that deletion review is not about the content of the article, but about the process of deletion. --Hyperbole 20:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Policy was followed and process was maintained. I probably should have speedied it when I first saw it.--MONGO 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Make that Strongly Endorse Deletion. It is a perfectly valid practice for the administrators to listen to the comments of contributors without being bound by the mere number of votes. One good argument beats ten bogus ones any day. I was one of those who said Delete or Clean up and Merge. That clearly means that my vote is intended to get rid of this article as a stand-alone article. From this point on I suppose I will simply say delete when given a choice to possibly salvage some small piece of an article. This article was a mess and had nothing notable about it. I'm rather tired of hearing unhappy posers attempting to pyschoanalyze deletion votes as being indicative of some underlying political purpose: analyze yourselves. I'm looking at this for editing purposes only and there is no good reason to keep this as a separate article. Wiki is not a collection of interview transcripts, particularly poor ones. Ande B 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Ande B. And Striver, please understand that in an AfD or a review of an AfD, the most unpersuasive thing you can do is make claims of censorship. JoshuaZ 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Interviews are rarely notable, and there is no compelling evidence that this goes against that trend. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• A whole website is dedicated to this event! How in Gods name can you call this as non-notable when people dedicate websites to it and go out giving demostrations of gratidude? There was nothing even close to consensus for delete, protocol is not followed! --Striver 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Groan, Striver please reread WP:N and WP:V. JoshuaZ 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The interview did happen, the audio and transcript are linked and the three CNN programs on the subject are also available for download and linked. Can you explain why you think this topic is not verifiable? Seabhcán 22:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Just because a topic is verifiable does not mean that it is notable. Ande B 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you agree the article is verifiable (and perhaps even verified?). Perhaps we can remove the above link to WP:V and its sly suggestion otherwise. Notibility is unprovable and completely in the eye of the POV beholder. Seabhcán 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't see any need for JoshuaZ to edit his post, nor do I interpret it as sly. Taken together, the two links show that mere verifiability is not sufficient to establish notability. Ande B 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is the proper interpretation of many of the merge votes, which called for a brief mention. Rhobite 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - No consensus was reached, either relist the piece on the AfDs, or per criteria, allow the piece to stay. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per Thatcher131 above. -Will Beback 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Not even close: to steal a line from the AFD discussionby Samir), "Must be laundry day. It explains the socks. And the soap." --Calton | Talk 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete per Striver. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Excellent analysis by the closer, clearly he had the big picture in mind and decided appropriately. I know my own Merge and Delete recommendation was certainly meant to fall within the Delete camp for this article, and I think the other commenters who recommended Merge in some form or fashion were likewise pretty clear as to their belief that this standalone article should go. --Krich (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Newsworthy is not the same as encyclopedic. There is just no encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in strongest possible terms. I love how the "9/11 truth" organization, which is a laugh all in itself, is trying to assert that everybody agrees with them that this is a major historical event. I don't agree with them, so your argument is fundamentally flawed. As for the deletion, I believe it was spot on, as mentioned by Krich. Kill this thing in the face. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment WP:SOCK says:

  It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

  Does the word "externally" mean outside Wikipedia only or does that paragraph apply to User_talk also? That happened in the original AfD as well as here: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] — Weregerbil 09:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It is nonsense to suggest there was any wrong doing in this case. Striver was informing users who had voted to keep that there was a deletion review ongoing. Show me the rule that says that is not allowed. These kind of accusations are simply a distraction and an attempt to intimidate.Seabhcán 09:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoa, easy please! I am not attempting to "intimidate" anyone, I am asking whether the above-quoted policy applies here. So the answer is "no, it's fine to invite people of known opinions into AfDs and DRVs"? Thanks, I think I learned something new today! Weregerbil 09:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, you didn't. Learn something, that is: It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Also: ...internal spamming means cross-posting of messages to a large number of user talk pages, by Wikipedians, in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • We are not talking about a large number of post, nor does this count as advertising. The users contacted had already voted on this issue. They were contacted to inform them that there was a new vote. It can be no coinicidence that Weregerbil 'discovered' these edits right after User:Swatjester falsely accused Striver of Spamming [80]. Is there a smell of socks in the air or do you guys work in the same office? Seabhcán 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually it is a coincidence (isn't that special)! No, we do not work at the same office (I am currently at home and there is nobody else here; by his signature he appears to be in Iceland and I am in Finland) and as to sockpuppetry you are welcome to request a user check. If I had been sure the invitations were not cool (per Calton above) I would have mentioned it to Striver myself. Why on Earth would anyone create elaborate sockpuppets to say something like that on user talk? Weregerbil 10:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Funny how Striver "forgot" to inform those who voted delete that there was a DRV pending, isn't it? And that is what was wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 14:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. It would be acceptable to alert everyone who gave input to the deletion discussion that there was a DRV. To only give it to those who agree with you is completely unacceptable and I have trouble seeing it as an action in good faith. JoshuaZ 14:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Simply put: this was not closed improperly. Eusebeus 09:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admin acted correctly. David | Talk 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Closing admins make judgement calls. No compelling case has been made that his judgement was unreasonable. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. `'mikka (t) 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per wknight94. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131 and others above. --mtz206 23:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted per Thryduulf, MONGO, Krich, Rossami and Dpbsmith, who basically said all I would have said myself. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist on AFD to generate a clearer consensus. -- King of Hearts ^talk 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, aside from the fact that the AFD resulted in a clear delete decision, the article topic is junk in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Closing analysis of AfD discussion was correct IMO, although I think the article topic has merit for being in WP. No comment on the actual article content. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Per excellent analysis of closing admin -- Samir (the scope) 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Lack of clear consensus. The fact that some of the users may have registered recently doesn't really prove much unless you can establish they are sockpuppets. Nil Einne 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not true. It has always been policy that the closing admin may choose whether or not to count new users' participations in discussions. See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Alien 5 (rumoured movie)

Alien 5 (rumoured movie) was deleted by User:Tregoweth 23:25, 22 March 2006, for reason 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball'. Deletion contested as 'out of process'. I am the main author and contributor and was not given an opportunity to discuss/debate the deletion. As far as I am aware, the article was not tagged with the deletion notice (I check my watchlist every few days and examine all edits, and I never saw a notice). Wikipeon 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, article violates WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish people who quote it would understand our NOT policy. Crystal-balling is when the writer adds his/her own speculation about a possible future event (i.e. NO crystal ball is just a more precise version of NOR). Reporting the notable speculation of others is perfectly legitimate. To take an extreme case, one wouldn't for example to delete a decent article on the proposed Freedom Tower.
  • Oh, and overturn. Pcb21 Pete 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a big difference between an architectural site for which there has been a design competition and significant controversy, and a movie that isn't even listed in IMDB. Thatcher131 17:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I normally turn to upcomingmovies.com for this sort of thing (it's now been bought by Yahoo!). Yes, they're not actually going to make Alien 5, at least not any time soon, hence it's not on IMDb. HOWEVER there has been a lot of notable talk about continuing the series, which is why this is a valid topic. Pcb21 Pete 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comment, Pcb21. It's been a while since I looked at that section of WP:NOT. However, I think you're interpreting the crystal ball guideline a bit too strictly. WP:NOT says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." In that respect, what you say is correct, that we can report "the notable speculation of others...." However, WP:NOT also says: "Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." From what I understand, the fifth Aliens movie has little non-promotional information available yet. Despite that, though, since WP:NOT makes clear that unreleased movies are valid article topics, I'm going to have to change my vote. See below. Powers 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think that line in WP:NOT is a classic example of policy page cruft/creep. Why pick on a particular case of a particular case (advertising in unreleased product) to mention in such a general place. The core principles here are Verifiability (which takes care of "crystal balls") and Neutrality (which takes care of advertising). I am glad you saw that and changed your vote. Pcb21 Pete 10:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but with some reservations. From Wikipeon's description, it sounds like it was speedied, but crystal ballism isn't a speedy criterion. I'd like to hear Tregoweth's side. HOWEVER: even if it was deleted out-of-process, there's absolutely no reason to restore the article and hold an AfD; per WP:BALLS, this article has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD, for precisely the reason given by Tregoweth. Powers 16:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you mean per WP:SNOW? WP:BALLS redirects to Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course. WP:SNOW. Stupid shortcuts.  ;) It doesn't help that sometimes Complete Bollocks can be called a "snow job". =) Powers 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and AfD. I've changed my vote per above, after rereading the WP:NOT section on Crystal Balls. Also WP:SNOW apparently doesn't apply, per Xoloz. Apologies. Powers 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)*Endorse deletion with reservations per LtPowers.Thatcher131 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:NOT is not a valid WP:CSD reason. It may have been valid under A1 or A3 or some other speedy criteria, but I can't tell without seeing the article, so will wait for admin to comment on that. In any case, speedy deletes should list a valid CSD reason in the deletion log, to avoid confusion. MartinRe 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD, per MartinRe, though to be honest, I think the AfD will result in WP:SNOW. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD. Quite obviously an improper speedy, and the article, while bad, is too substantial for me to consider it for the snow shovel. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list on AfD WP:NOT is NOT a Wikipedia CSD. Contested speedy, and classic AfD topic. Rumoured movies frequently survive valid AfDs. Xoloz 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD. Let it get its week in the sun before it's deleted.  RasputinAXP  c 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/list not a speedy. --Rob 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This hasn't a hope in hell at AfD. Really. Why waste everybody's time? Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Because we're not AfD, and if we make judgements on content rather than process the norm, rather than something we do purely in extreme cases to save time, we'll turn into it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And slightly perversely, a key reason that it wouldn't survive AfD is that it has been through here. Too many people have said delete now, and people psychologically find it difficult to change their mind/accept they are wrong, so will continue to support deletion come what may. If this debate hadn't occured, I know I could write an article on the purported Alien 5 that would either not getted AFDed or survive AFD, but now that it has, it probably isn't worth me trying :). Should I anyway? Pcb21 Pete 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. If anything an overturn / list decision might have the opposite effect. But any AfD debate which looked at the content of the article as deleted this time is only going to have one outcome. I like process, I think process is important when large numbers of people need to work together and I would probably not have speedied it myself, but I really can't see any point undoing that just so we can trade "due process" for a week of having a crap article with a delete tag. Where's the benefit in that? Just zis Guy you know? 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria, so {{prod}} would have been apropriate rather than a speedy. There is absolutely no point in recreating this for it to spend a week with either a {{prod}} or {{afd}} tag on it before deleting it again. Keep deleted. Thryduulf 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process I still believe it should have been granted a proper review period, but I've notified User:Tregoweth that I will no longer contest. Can somebody retrieve the contents of the page so I can add to my own site? (send by email or simply add to my user page where I will retrieve it) I put in a lot of work assembling all the referenced quotes and would like that effort not to be for nothing. Thanks. 202.0.15.138 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not signed in for that comment. Wikipeon 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW. (And I'm a huge fan.) John Reid 05:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Elf-friend 09:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article pronto. Serious violation of CSD- we have Prod, we have AfD, we have article talk pages, we have user talk pages- learn how to use them. It is shocking that admins feel entitled to trample established systems, in the process contravening AGF, as they seek to frog march articles off the site. The ends do not justify the means. -- JJay 14:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• List on AFD. There are some small pieces of sources in the article which might give it a chance of survival on AFD. THe proper forum to evaluate whether this is good enough or just pure speculation is a deletion, and not an undeletion discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome but not process, with strong reservations I see original author has withrawn the review and requseted the article be userfied, which I hope it will, as it could be useful should the film plans get more concrete in future. However, I am concerned with the number of SNOW comments. Yes, some incorrectly speedied articles would be snowballed in an afd, but we should be very careful not to allow WP:SNOW become a de facto WP:CSD. For the sake of a few days, I would much prefer a snowballed afd than an incorrect speedy. Yes, mistakes happen, and we shouldn't blindly relist all incorrect speedys, but we should be aware of the impression that the overuse of SNOW as endorsing incorrect speedys gives to people. Saying "this article would so obviously fail, that discussion isn't even necessary" should be used very sparingly. Regards, MartinRe 15:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Clearly violates WP:CSD. Take to AfD if within the relevant percentage majority. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Clearly violates WP:CSD. Take to AfD ONLY AFTER significant discussion takes place on its own talk page to give it some chance of being all it can be. It doesnt HAVE TO be automatically afd'd again does it now.moza 11:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

2 April 2006

Islamophilia

This article was speedied twice by the same admin during the first two days of a vigorous (but civil) AfD debate and is currently protected by same. At the time of the last speedy there were 21 votes, of which about one third were keeps, and the keeps were not from obvious sockpuppets or madmen. This diversity is significant enough that it should be clear to anybody that a speedy delete (which is supposed to be used in obviously nontrontroversial cases only) is a wrong, wrong thing to do, whether as an attempt to close the AfD or in spite of it.

I would be quite happy to see this article disappear eventually -- nothing good can come from it IMO -- but that does not mean that proces can just be bypassed in this way. The article should be undeleted for the time being and the AfD allowed to run its course. Henning Makholm 09:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• So, you want to undelete an article and put it back on the encyclopedia, when you think it will do wikipedia no good and shouldn't be on the encyclopedia, and a previous afd consensus thought shouldn't be on the encyclopedia, all because you were having a nice little debate, which, theoretically, might have ended in 'no-consensus'? That really is process wonking. --Doc ^ask? 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, appropriate speedy as recreated content. Not something we want sticking around in any case. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, the AFD was developing an interesting range of opinions, and the discussion should be left to run its course. Yes, it seems the original speedy may have been justified following recreation, but I think once the discussion had started to develop it should have been left to run. At the least the admin that speedied it a second time should have posted an explanation. Kcordina ^Talk 09:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment :: I~Phobia has just survived AfD; odd, perhaps, then that I~philia is speedied. NPOV anyone ? -- Simon Cursitor 09:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Islamophobia is a commonly used word. Islamophilia isn't. For each google hit on Islamophilia there are 1400 on Islamophobia. They aren't even in the same ballpark. Shadowoftime 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Kcordina's above comments. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Kcordina. Also, the last round of deletions, according to the log, was nine and a half months ago. The contributor has WP:CHILLed, and after this long period of time, tried again. In the case of new words, a lot may change in nine months, which is why I'd rather see it go through a full AfD cycle and get deleted that way. -- Saberwyn 10:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You know what scares me? Doc glasgow's comment below, saying that no one "did [him] the courtesy" of informing him of the AfD debate. First, that means that he completely missed the nice, big AfD template on the top of the page. I know it was there because I added it to the most recent deleted version, and saw it on the deleted verson before. I'm going to assume bad faith here, and make the assumption that Doc did not even look at the articlepage before he performed the speedy delete. The second thing that scares me about this statement, is that Doc appears to be claiming that there are things on Wikipedia that require his personal permission before they can happen. -- Saberwyn 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy Prior to this debate the article had been deleted five times (by five different admins). A better example of G4 (which was the explaination given both times in the deletion log) would be hard to find. MartinRe 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as a valid speedy of recreated content. While the content may not be identical to the one that was deleted by consensus, I'm not seeing why this is a valid article now when it wasn't last July. While this has been used by newspapers, we're an encyclopaedia and we're not required to cover every single meaningless neologism hacks come out with. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• After I have looked at the two versions, I will say relist. The first deletion, by Kelly Martin back in June, was entirely the correct decision in a sockfest of an AFD debate. The version here has several examples of the term being used by famous authors, journalists and politicians, something which was not in the old version. Therefore, I don't think that this counts as a "substantially identical" version. Also, over a few months, a term which was premature for an article may very well have evolved into a term deserving of one and I think further discussion on this is warranted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Sam Blanning and MartinRe. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted with earth salted. Deleted by valid AfD, deleted again as valid G4 several times, I would also have closed the second AfD as delete, on the weight of arguments presented. Content was not only substantially similar, but was created by the same editor, which looks a lot like gaming the system. WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course the content of an article about the same subject is similar. It has, though, been rewritten from scratch entirely, as has been observed by others. I already prove that its deletion was a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, as such providing textbook examples of politically correct bigotry. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Strangely, bigotry appears to be an excellent description of how the article is viewed by those who have read it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• I am about to make a test. I do not know yet how the test will turn out. I am about to perform a search on "Islamophilia" the full text of the New York TImes from 2000 through yesterday. If this is a real word in itself singificant use, and not just a columnist's or blogger's coinage (or a repeatedly-reinvented nonce word by someone seeking a rhetorical opposite for "Islamophobia,"), then someone, somewhere should have mentioned it in the Times by now. Let's see. My vote will be based on the outcome. Here goes. "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Odd, my own search of NyTimes.com came up with this from September 12, 2004. Netscott 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse, keep deleted. Valid AfD. The question is whether the new article proves that some significant sea-change has occurred since the AfD and the word has exploded into widespread use. The Times search convinces me that it has not.. This is not a real word in significant contemporary use, it is just an occasional reinvention or re-coinage and has no meaning beyond the individual meanings of "islam" and "-philia." I could be searching for a word to explain the recurrence of the thirteenfold motif on the dollar bill and say "triskaidekaphilia" and you'd know what I meant, but that does not mean triskaidekaphilia is a real word that needs an article. You can take an article about any word ending in -phobia and change the ending to -philia and likely find scattered examples of occasional use, but that doesn't mean we need corresponding -philia articles for every -phobia article, any more than we need an article on Pedophobia. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. What Dpbsmith said. Even the most "unabridged" dictionaries don't include entries for every word that is possible by mixing and matching suffixes like "-phobia" and "-philia", and an encyclopedia certainly shouldn't. - Nunh-huh 12:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: clear violation of Wikipedia policy. The VfD was not concluded in a proper manner. The deletor cannot motivate his deletion by objective reasons. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In a way that your repeated re-creation of a deleted article is not violation of policy? Just zis Guy you know? 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not, and I can. But 1. no-one did me the courtacy of informing me of this debate. 2. I speedied this twice per CSD G4, 'recreation of previously deleted content 3.'. There was a clear consensus 4. to delete the first time, and you don't get to game the system by constantly recreating and sending to afd until you can magic 31% to create a no-consensus. If there was reason to overturn the first afd, you bring it here and give your reasons. Keep deleted, obviously.--Doc ^ask? 12:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ad 1. The page was tagged with a huge VfD boiler template just minutes after creation which was hard to miss. This renders this point less plausible, bordering the ludicrous.
      ad 2. I rewrote thepage from scratch as I had not a backup copy, assuming some basic feeling of fair play aty the side of Wikipedia admins. It can be easily verified that the page is quite different from the version nine months ago.
      ad 3. Recreating the page more than nine months after the last VfD in which there was just a slim majority of 55% to delete it, hardly qualifies as gaming the system. Refer to the applicable Wikipedia VfD policy.
      ad 4. There was not a clear consensus, not nine months ago and not now. Please check the VfD attempts.
      --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Since this was not an exact recreation of content the G4 does not seem motivated. Furthermore, an excessive reliance on process over common sense is not constructive. The previous debate was held almost a year ago and was marred by puppets. This debate had significant participation and was properly conducted. In my opinion, using G4 while an AfD is in progress does more damage than any possible good. -- JJay 13:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. While this is as far as I can tell a neologism, it is important to follow process when dealing with controversial issues. JoshuaZ 13:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - keep deleted - per Doc glascow, MartinRe and Sam Blanning. I certainly trust Doc's knowledge of process and his judgment. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The article spliced together a number of separate neologisms for this term but it is not in general use, is pejorative, and I don't think a reasonable encyclopaedia article can be made out of it. David | Talk 14:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse G4 speedy/keep deleted per Dbpsmith. His test [1] convinces me of neologistic status as well. A valid AfD [2] deserves respect until substantial cause is given to reconsider. Xoloz 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [1] Can you elaborate on this test? [2]I have proven that the previous AfD and this AfD were not valid at all. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • 1.) See Dpbsmith's comments for his test and 2.) The previous AfD looks valid to me, and (reading your comments) I see no "proof" otherwise. First AfD was closed 5k/29d (discounting sockpuppets, which closer annotated), which is much more than 55%. Xoloz 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
      • 1. His remarks have been scanned. The New York Times is known for its politically correct bias thus hardly can be deemed a trustworthy source for evaluating the concurrency of politically incorrect parlance. Other publications such as the Times and Washington Times did use the word. This so-called 'research', thus, is Americocentric and disregards British and other non-American media and discourse.
        2. It was not valid for the following reasons. a) Less than 2/3 majority b) Arbitrary disregard of anonymous votes (violation of innocent until proven) c) Disturbance of voting process by premature deletion of the page.
        Additional arguments for maintaining the term are:
        is notable
        is used in print
        is used in several reputable academic publications
        yields about 1000 Google hits
        --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I think in section b of this last comment, the source of the misunderstanding becomes clear. Wikipedia has had such bad experiences with users creating sockpuppet accounts in an attempt to bias our decision-making process that we have long-established traditions in which all suspiciously new or anonymous accounts may be disregarded at the discretion of the closing administrator. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply. We are not holding a court nor are we making decisions about the life or liberty of the users. Furthermore, it's essentially impossible to prove sockpuppetry, making that an impossible standard for our purposes. An better analogy is that we are establishing (well ahead of time) some reasonable requirements for sufferage. Note that the concept of sufferage also applies only weakly because AFD decision-making process is a discussion, not a vote.
          Your other points about notability and use in print are possible arguments for undeletion but so far you have not provided any sources for those claims and even if true, they still seem to qualify this term as a neologism which is deletable under the Wikipedia is not a dictionary rule. Perhaps this content would be more appropriate over in Wiktionary? Rossami (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/Keep deleted and salted. This article has been recreated and redeleted so many times, it's almost become a cliché for {{deletedpage}}. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • With reason. All of its deletes were arbitrary and clear violations of applicable Wikipedia guidelines, as I explained above. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per User:JzG's comments above. --Hetar 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above; perfectly within process, and the right thing to do given previous AfD discussin. Eusebeus 10:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and transwikify to Striverpedia. Thatcher131 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per User:Dpbsmith's [1] test logic. [81]. I've not voted in any of the previous AfD's for Islamophilia (I'm a bit indifferent to the word myself) but speedy deletion seems to have been an improper course of action. Netscott 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Keep deleted and salted. I think it's been through plenty of deletion processes. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure - Still no reason as to why it should be re-re-created has been made. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - per above. Raphael1 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. `'mikka (t) 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Germen. Concern that the contentious term may have been improperly deleted. It's not used as much as -phobia but has been used by a number of websites and pundits to describe perceived obsequious pandering to Muslim demands. (In this sense it is similar to philo-Semitism.) I am expressing no opinion here as to the merits of the term, but it deserves more discussion; a less hasty solution might have been to redirect it to Islamophobia and describe it as a pendant to the more common term there. ProhibitOnions 21:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and relist on AfD The first deletion following AfD was valid. The second G4 speedy deletion in the midst of another AfD was not valid. The article as it stood at the time of deletion was clearly not recreated content of a substantially identical copy of the deleted material. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• overturn and relist this please erasure was not valid Yuckfoo 07:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 April

1. Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal Closure as redirect endorsed unanimously. 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. List of films about phantom or sentient animals Closure endorsed unanimously/kept deleted. 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Feminists Against Censorship Speedily (and unanimously) overturned and restored. 09:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Waldo's wallpaper Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth Deletion closure endorsed. 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Template:Kosovo-geo-stub Deletion closure endorsed. 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
7. HAI2U Deletion closure endorsed; no consensus on redirect created during DRV debate - take to RfD if there are objections. 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Anabasii restored [82] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[83] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [84] 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Jeniferever Deletion endorsed; however, valid recreation permitted during debate. 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Dominionist political parties Closure endorsed, kept deleted. [85] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [86] 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Mindscript - kept deleted. I don't know whether I should consider User:212.209.39.154's blanking of the undeletion notice and discussion as a withdrawal of the request to undelete, or as vandalism; but the article had no chance to be undeleted anyway. See [87]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [88] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [89] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [90] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [91] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [92] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [93] 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
21. UAAP Football Champions contested PROD speedy restored, listed at AfD. 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Suzy Sticks, history and content userfied [94] 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
23. List of themed timelines AfD, debate reopened (without prejudice) by original closer. 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
24. SSOAR, deletion endorsed unanimously. 01:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Sigave National Association, kept deleted. [95] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [96] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[97] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[98] 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China Deletion overturned. Noted at WP:CFD. 10:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
30. William Hamlet Hunt Deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI, Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: Miami and Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: New York deletion endorsed and noted at WP:CFD. Diff. 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Gateware. Deletion endorsed. Diff. 15:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Tuatafa Hori Overturned, deleted. Diff. 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
34. PIGUI Deletion overturned, article reinstated. Diff. 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
35. List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years Deletion overturned, recreated. Diff. 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Category:Subdivisions by country to Category:Administrative divisions by country relisted at WP:CFD on April 15. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT Userfied. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Switchtrack Alley Deletion endorsed, a consensus against userfication also exists. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Daniel Brandt Third and fourth afd closures endorsed, article kept. Dif for discussion here. 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Harry's Place Mistaken nomination. Nominator was confused about how to contest the tagging of the page as a speedy. Discussion moved to the article's Talk page. 12:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Template: Future tvshow Speedy undeleted as contested PROD. 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
42. SFEDI Deletion overturned, list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFEDI. [99] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [100] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [101] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [102] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [103] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [104] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [105] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [106] 04:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
51. William T. Bielby, mistaken nomination now resolved. 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Slam (band), speedy kept; lister thought {{oldafdfull}} implied article was being renominated for deletion. [107] 6:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
53. List of news aggregators, kept deleted, protected. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Joshua Wolf, kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Gigi Stone, no consensus to restore. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
56. John Law (artistic pioneer), kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
57. George Goble, made redirect. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Top Fourteen, delete closure endorsed (speedily so, after sockpuppet problems.) 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Talk:Orders of magnitude (new chains)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Orders of magnitude (chains), Talk:Orders of magnitude (chain page names), Talk:Orders of magnitude (template)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/template and Talk:Orders of magnitude (converter), speedily restored and moved to Talk:Order of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chain page names, Talk:Order of magnitude/template and Talk:Order of magnitude/converter, respectively. [108] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [109] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [110] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [111], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [112] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [113] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [114] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [115] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [116] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [117] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [118] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [119] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [120] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [121] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [122] 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, deletion reversed, listed on AFD. 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Talk:Userboxes, no consensus to restore deleted versions. 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Gilles Trehin/Gilles Tréhin, kept deleted; no consensus to restore. New discussions on possible future article at Talk:Gilles Trehin [123]15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Robert "Knox" Benfer, kept deleted. Page protected. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Bonez, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
80. 50 Bands To See Before You Die, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin1 - unanimously kept deleted. 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
82. James H. Fetzer, original speedy deletion of article upheld, recreated redirect left in place. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
83. List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Portuguese Discovery of Australia, delisted early—inappropriate for deletion review, as page version was never deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Doorknob (game), deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
86. Betty chan, kept deleted. Copy of article reposted on talk page moved to User:Snob/Betty Chan; talk page deleted per CSD G8.14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
87. Young Writers Society, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
88. Mike Murdock, deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
89. David R. Smith, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
90. Stir, deltetion overturned, relisted on AFD where there was a consensus to keep. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
91. California State Route 85, status quo maintained. 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
92. Control Monger, restored, relisted for AFD. 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
93. MPOVNSE, kept deleted. 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
94. Omar Q Beckins, kept deleted. 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
95. The Go, deletion overturned. 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
96. John Fullerton, deletion endorsed. 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
97. Imaginary antecedent kept deleted; sadly (and very surprisingly) appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia:No original research; completely unreferenced. 14:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
98. Template:People_stub restored, unprotected, listed for consideration on WP:SFD. [124] 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
99. Myg0t overturned and undeleted. 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
100. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
101. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
102. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
103. Category:Roman Catholic actors, speedy deletion reversed; relisted for further consideration at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31#Category:Roman_Catholic_actors. March 31 2006