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)

12 April 2006

Daniel Brandt

A 4th AFD nom was created today, speedy kept by me after 10 minutes with a note to bring the result of the 3rd nom to here, DRV. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (3rd nomination). No vote. NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 01:33 UTC (2006-04-12)

• Endorse closure/continue to keep The nomination in the 4th AfD was plainly out-of-process in its reasoning. A subject's dislike of his article is no reason for deletion. Full stop. I would support speedy closure of any debate that used that as its sole deletion justification; in this case, with three prior AfDs, the logic in closing this one is even stronger. I suggest Brandt be given GNAA treatment, and that all subsequent AfD noms be closed immediately, at least until a specified time passes. Xoloz 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/Keep kept (?). Not this again. Yes, snowball clause, this article has already been AfDed so many times (and DRVed before too, I think). This is fast becoming the new GNAA. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep as permanent monument of trolling, just as the GNAA. — Apr. 12, '06 [03:48] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Keep article w.protect; consider (based on their rationale) referring future AfD nominators to the Admin Cabal, for bad faith. -- Simon Cursitor 07:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. "Disrespecting this guy by having an article on him when he clearly doesn't want one is a personal attack". Not even close to a valid reasoning, WP:NPA applies to Wikipedia editors, not subjects of articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 4th closure (although there would have been little harm in letting the 3rd run). I have concerns here, Brandt is only marginally notable (although he's becoming notorious in wikipedia - but that isn't grounds to keep as it would make the article a self reference). I fear we are in danger of creating an Emmanuel Goldstein hate figure for ourselves, and that isn't healthy and it becomes publicity this guy does not deserve (nor, so he says, desire). Would it hurt so much to delete this thing and walk away? --Doc ^ask? 09:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 4th closure And Doc, yes it would hurt to delete. As you observe he is "marginally notable" that's enough for him to be on Wikipedia. To then remove him due to his own poor behavior sets a bad precedent that self-absorbed jerks can dictate what articles are on Wikipedia. This is completely unacceptable. In any event, to compare Brandt to Emmanuel Goldstein is off the wall, Goldstein was portrayed as something of an actual threat in the book, Brandt is much more of general nuisance. JoshuaZ 12:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

'Marginally notable' bios are routinely kept or deleted depending on which way the die falls on AfD, and the place doesn't fall apart either way. The reason for keeping this seems to be 'we don't want to let Brandt win'. But why are we 'playing' this guy at all? Why do we make him matter that much to wikipedia? Where is the evidence that letting this go would open the floodgates? Brandt is no real threat to us - that's my point. But like Emmanuel Goldstein we can't seem to debate him without portraying him as this great dangerous enemy, who needs to be resisted for core ideological reasons. Why use words like 'poor behaviour' and 'self-absorbed jerk' - why is that a reason to keep an article that is more trouble than it is worth? --Doc ^ask? 13:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closures (all of them). Per policy, this article is verifiable from reliable sources, cited, neutral. Per guidelines, the subject is clearly notable, even if partly by self-reference (which is allowable, we have an article on Jimbo after all). And per Great Justice, this article is now the No. 1 Google hit for Daniel Brandt, which scores ten bonus points for irony. "All your hits are belong to us!" Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Guess I'll be put on a watch list for Endorse 3 AFds have failed. There are other articles where the person doesn't want it there they survived AfD so should this one. I do suggest that someone tighten the article up with better sourcing. Making it harder for any libel suits to be filed. --Tollwutig 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

11 April 2006

Evan Lee Dahl

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Lee Dahl

I would like to edit an article for actor Evan Lee Dahl. He was deleted months ago. They said that he wasn't a notable actor. He has since won 2 awards. The 2006 Young Artist Award and the 2006 Method Fest Award. I would like to write a new article, but R. Koot categorized it as Protected Deleted Pages and gave it a g4. Of course this is going to be a recreation of deleted material. The only difference is that the actor is now an Award Winning Actor. Just Me 17:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, the awards were not notable, and neither is he. This has been hashed out and rehased a couple of times now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question. Can you point us to reliable sources that give biographical accounts of this individual, sufficiently comprehensive that an encyclopedic entry may be written on him? Thanks —Encephalon 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE, THE AWARDS ARE BOTH LISTED AS NOTABLE ON IMDB.COM, THE AWARDS ARE SO NEW THAT THE 2006 IS NOT LISTED YET. DON'T BE MEAN. Just Me 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: We are not being "mean". We are holding ourselves to some fairly strict and non-negotiable standards of verifiability. Please note that IMBD is not generally considered a particularly reliable source. The other sites you list below will need to be evaluated. In the meantime, I have a personal request. Please stop shouting (that is, take off your CAPS LOCK key). Rossami (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, but I think recreation a rewrite would be fine if reliable sources can be provided and it's written in a more encyclopedic style. It would at least require a new afd due to changed circumsances. —Ruud 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• ANSWER - THE RELIABLE SOURCES THUS FAR WOULD BE TO GO TO THE WEBSITES WHERE THE AWARD WINNERS ARE POSTED. (YOU HAVE A LOT OF AWARD WINNING CHILD ACTORS ON YOUR SITE AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD EVAN.) TRY WWW.METHODFEST.COM AND SCROLL DOWN. YOU CAN SEE A PICTURE OF EVAN WITH HIS TROPHY. ALSO, GO TO HTTP://WWW.YOUNGARTISTAWARDS.ORG/NOMS27.HTM AND SCROLL DOWN. EVAN'S NAME WILL BE IN RED (AS ARE ALL THE WINNERS). THANK YOU. Just Me 18:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, still NN. KimvdLinde 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. These are not the Oscars. Just zis Guy you know? 20:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion The evidence presented is insufficient for me to question my own vote in the AfD at issue, way back in November. I see no reason to revisit the issue in a new debate, as the awards mentioned appear minor. Xoloz 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, information presented here is insufficient to overturn the AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Child actors do not compete for an Oscar, they compete worldwide for the past 27 years for the prestigous Young Artist Award. Some of the best adult actors have been nominated and/or received this award when they were younger. I realize that I would need to re-write this article in a more encyclopedia-ish style. A lot of the child actors on this site are here because they have won this award. The MethodFest Award is new to me. It had mostly adults competeing. :)Just Me 16:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• (Thanks for not writing in caps. :) Can you list one or two of the actors who have Wikipedia articles solely on the basis of having won this award? · rodii · 17:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recently I visited the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. On the wall is the list of winners of the Gold Medal. It is an illustrious list, including the likes of Jacqueline du Pré and Bryn Terfel. It also contains a lot of names which I, an avid buyer of classical music, have never come across at all. Famous people often win youth awards - but not everyone who wins those same awards necessarily goes on to become famous. Just zis Guy you know? 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. AfD was validly closed. All "keep" votes appear to be ballot stuffing. With my AdministrativePower®, I have looked at the deleted article, and it reads like vanity. "Evan Lee Dahl" gets about 500 Google hits. JIP | Talk 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SFEDI

SFEDI, a UK organization, was speedy deleted and the following log was made:

20:52, 7 April 2006 Mathwiz2020 deleted "SFEDI" (CSD A7)

Here's the SFEDI website, which was provided to me by the creator of the SFEDI article, User:TobyJ, who's upset about the article's deletion. It's pretty clear that SFEDI is an organization, and as such, A7 is inapplicable. Not knowing what was in the article, I can only suspect that it should have probably gone to AfD. I dropped a note to User:Mathwiz2020 about this as well. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The article does not assert sufficient notability. If information to buttress such a claim is found, then do recreate the article. Johnleemk | Talk 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • But how can I see inside of it? I am not an admin. Thanks. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Complete content was "SFEDI is the Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative, a private company that works under contract to the UK government to develop occupational standards for small business managers and advisers.". User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• In that case, I vote to Overturn deletion b/c A7 is improper for these contents, and open AfD discussion. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, expand, and list on AfD. No specific claim of notability is made but A7 does not specifically apply to companies. In the meantime more information should be found and confirmed. David | Talk 19:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well now. A7 does not apply to companies, but to be fair the author did not do much of a job of showing why we should care. Why not write a real article instead of a one-liner? Something which gives some kind of indication what the firm is supposed to be notable for? AfD on the existing content is a waste of effort - the article needs to be (a) more encyclopaedic or (b) gone, and the best way to kick-start more encyclopaedic is for one of those people who cares to create at least a decent stub. So: endorse status quo with no prejudice whatsoever against creation of a genuine article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and expand this please, A7 was an improper deletion. Relist on AFD if notability is being questioned. Silensor 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted In my opinion, a business (or, as the article said, "private company") can qualify as CSD A7 ("unremarkable people or groups"). Even if it didn't, it could be CSD'd under A3 (no content). If it was overturned, it would fail to meet WP:CORP and stay deleted, so why snowball it? --M@thwiz2020 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CORP is a consensus call. Besides, it's not perfectly hopeless, IMHO. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and AfD Article is presently poor, but it is not covered by A7 (nor A3, as it is a fine, reasonably precise sentence), and I cannot in good faith snowball it, either. AfD might bring forth more facts in support of notability. Xoloz 02:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD, there are sufficient questions about this company to warrant an AfD instead of a speedy. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion -- UK quango therefore arguably recordable. -- Simon Cursitor 07:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a CSD A3 (empty article), but allow and encourage recreation. Undelete iff someone wants to use that sentence in the new article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Kat Shoob

After the page was deleted, I replied to an admin about this article after I received the following message:

• Hello, Mr.bonus. It has been decided on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Shoob that Kat Shoob be deleted. Please do not re-create this article without a very good reason. -- PFHLai 11:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My reply:

• Hi, you don't want people e-mailing you so I'll stick this here instead. I want to say that you deleted my page and linked to an old deletion discussion. The argument was that she wasn't famous enough, she is now on ITV1 and part of a presenting team who all have Wikipedia pages. My article has changed drastically and is a worthy addition to Wiki. There is no reason to delete it. I thought admin had to check if the article changed before using speedy deletion - you can't be doing your job right if that's it. Check The Mint page and The Mint official website to see how popular she is. Also, stop picking on this article when there are thousands of pages all over Wikipedia about people less famous or notable.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.bonus (talk • contribs) .

PFHLai's reply:

• : Frankly, there are more than thousands of similar wikipages about minor celebrities that should be deleted. Okay. I'll leave Kat Shoob alone for now. Good luck. BTW, may I suggest using Image:The mint tv.jpg ? Image:Kat Shoob.jpg is of poor quality. --PFHLai 12:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My reply:

• : Thanks. I'll consider getting a better image. --User:Mr.bonus

This admin read the previous version of the page and admitted it had changed significantly and subsequently allowed the page. Someone else has since used 'speedy deletion' after reading only the previous discussion (which was only based on the original article).

• Reasons to reinstate the article follow: The Kat Shoob page is now protected. The admin are using this discussion as reason to delete the page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Shoob. This argument is old and the reason the page was deleted then was because she wasn't famous enough. Kat has had a speedy rise to fame and is now on ITV1 presenting a daily show alongside Brian Dowling (who has a detailed Wikipedia page) where she also regularly interviews famous celebrity guests such as Ricky Tomlinson. Her popularity can also be determined by the fact that ITV are using her in all promotional images of their show The Mint. The Mint is notable for being the flagship programme of ITV's brand new channel ITV Play, where Kat is also a presenter on one of the channel's other shows. This page has become a soft-target solely because I first made the page when she wasn't a known celebrity. The page itself hasn't merely been re-submitted but has been improved. There is no valid reason to lower the quality and amount of information being offered by the article The Mint just to maintain this vendetta against the 'Kat Shoob' page. Regarding the TV show that The Mint replaces which previously occupied the same slot in ITV's schedule Quizmania, every presenter had a wikipedia page. These programs are very popular and have a large following of people that often update and add information to the wiki pages of such shows.

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Not every TV presenter on an obscure programme on a little-watched channel is notable. Deleted article was almost entirely trivial. If subject makes it big then she can have a proper article. David | Talk 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate the page. Did you look at the last article? It is not entirely trivial at all, and is ITV1 a little-watched channel? I think you've read the wrong one. Look at the latest version of the article and you'll see that she has definitely made it big enough to warrant an article. This seems to be a biased opinion based on the fact that the article was deleted in the past. How can you say "delete" in a knee-jerk manner without researching the subject? Please look at the newer, improved article and the related articles; The Mint page and ITV Play page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.69.123 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse decision, keep deleted No errors in process, no obvious significant changes since then. In short, not obviously more significant that the average barrel girl. Suggest user waits 12 months to see if notability rises, then reapply with new evidence for notability. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. A British television presenter's notability can't raise much more than a host on ITV1. By the way, BenAveling, if you're not admin, how do you know what the old article consisted of compared to the new one?
• Undelete and list on AfD this is not the place to discuss how notable whe is. Septentrionalis 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse decision, keep deleted. As a participant in the original deletion discussion, I do not see any new reasons to keep the article being raised here, just the old ones rehashed in the hope that a newer audience might buy them. I also recall Mr Bonus saying "So go ahead and delete the page it's not like I'm ever going to return here." Somehow I doubted that at the time, and the fact that he went back on his word doesn't argue for good faith.

The rationale for keeping this page remains the same: when she has sufficient notability outside any attempt to use a Wikipedia article to generate it. When she does commercials, guest appearances on TV shows etc., when there are tons and tons of fan sites, then I'll say yes. But Wikipedia is not a buzz generator. Daniel Case 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. When the Trivia section contains more meat than the main article you know you are in Cruftland. After reading the article I now know less than I did before. Just zis Guy you know? 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Why should The Mint page have blue links on all presenters excepting her (when she is the only ITV Play presenter to be hosting two out of their three shows and features on all the channel's promotional material)? Its removal isn't doing anything for the betterment of Wikipedia. The bottom line is if this page wasn't created a few months ago, and therefore didn't have a prior deletion discussion attached to it, nobody would have started one and it would be allowed to stay. All your side's arguments are nothing more than nit-picking in order to keep it deleted. Someone said; "She may be famous one day. Let's let that day be the day this article is accepted for reposting". When she became a presenter on ITV and in order to enhance 'The Mint' and 'ITV Play' pages, I decided to try and write a new article and put her back on, but I knew exactly what would happen. She would have to become the queen of England to be allowed back on now. What about the category - 'British television presenters'? I would think there is no higher qualification to be featured here than hosting a programme on either BBC or ITV. How does someone acheive a level of fame equal to Jack Nicholson (and therefore be allowed on Wiki without qualms because they have "tons and tons of fan sites") within the 'British television presenters' category? Did anyone even read my reasons for keeping the page and research everything related to it? Is anybody even able to compare the articles? You all seem to be doing nothing but taking text from the first deletion discussion and using them as reasons the new article shouldn't stay (and therefore voting 'no' for the sake of it). Obviously the Admin who reinstated the article counts for nothing...
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep, Why isn't there a rule that says only admin can vote? There has been 3 users voting in this and unless there admin, they can't even look at the articles we are discussing. These votes are null but they obviously count against my page...
• keep, Whether you think it’s an article on a fluffy subject or not, many other people are interested in TV presenters and the programmes they present. All pages don’t have to be about people who have changed the world in some way. I have come up with plenty of reasons why it is a relevant page, and all your argument consists of is pointing to your precious ‘notability guidelines’. These guidelines are serving no purpose other than being a loophole for people like you to use when there’s a page on something you don’t like. If these are actually the ‘rules’ why are there reams of pages that nobody is bothering to shut down?

The issue of my pages deletion has now become a matter of principle for me. I’d accept this decision and actually be happy with it, if you prove to me that these guidelines aren’t a wretched excuse to pick on pages that have incensed you in some way and that they are in place and are being upheld for the good of Wikipedia. If my page goes, there are thousands of other pages that should and if you care so damn much about the notability guidelines that you incessantly reference, do something about it. What good is going to all this trouble to remove just one page going to serve? Prove that these guidelines mean something; go and delete the thousands of other far more useless pages that you already know exist yet choose to turn a blind eye to. You might think the easiest option is just to delete this page, but if you do, then you will have to delete every page for the presenters of the other ITV quiz show; Quizmania, in order to justify it. Why make Wikipedia an incoherent mess and have an article for every presenter from Quizmania and the current and more popular The Mint excepting one? The bottom line is, this is an instance where voting ‘’delete’’ yet again, isn’t the easiest option. If this page goes, all the others have to, unless you want to prove what I suspected all along; that you are discriminating against this page.

• • That fact that you have tried to make it look as if you are multiple people only damages your case. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - While if I had been involved in the AfD I probabily would have argued for keeping the article, the debate was closed correctly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Posting two messages in a row doesn't mean I am trying to be two people. I am just making two points.

Template:No Crusade

The text of this template was: This article or section contains unfair critique on Islam and does not represent a view shared by many Muslims. Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

As you can see on the Templates for deletion page User:Freakofnurture removed the [[Template::No Crusade]], which I have created for countering systemic bias. The Template was neither divisive nor inflammatory. It did not express more prejudice towards wikipedians than i.e. Template:TrollWarning does. Raphael1 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I don't think the template meets the definition of "divisive and inflammatory" and hence it should not have been speedied. On the other hand, I don't think the template is necessary, as a simple {{POV}} with adequate discussion on the talk page is actually sufficient. Following policy strictly I would say "undelete and re-list on TFD for proper discussion", however if that were to happen I would vote to delete it. So I guess I'll just cut through the red tape and say keep deleted despite being an out-of-process speedy. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion we already have general templates for dealing with bias, we don't need one specifically for anti-Muslim bias. Such special consideration is inflammatory and unecessary. JoshuaZ 20:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted undeleting this would just be process wonking. --Doc ^ask? 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no need for inflamatory templates. Template name is very POV (implies that there is a crusade against the muslim world) and as such already unwanted. KimvdLinde 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted- I concur with JoshuaZ and KimvdLinde’s comments above.Timothy Usher 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I have a special interest in issues of systemic bias at Wikipedia but in this case the template is POV. I also think the speedy delete was justified under a ruling Jimbo made about "divisive and inflammatory" templates a while back (but I can't find the link to this right now--anyone else have it?)--Alabamaboy 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion since it is precisely as stated: divisive. Do we have a comparable template for every other religion, including Brianism? In what way is this functionally different from {NPOV}? Just zis Guy you know? 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I'm bothered by the presence of a concerted war against Muslim editors on Wikipedia or any editor who happens to accidentally portray Muslims in a positive light in the process of presenting an factually-correct NPOV article. Article after article either needs to support the current collective atmosphere of Islamophobia (aka anti-Islam, aka attitudes synonymous with anti-Semitism but directed towards Muslims) fostered by the War on Terror or editors are banned and run out of town. Recent battlegrounds include Islamism, Islamophobia, and Islamofacism articles. For example, Wikipedia even goes are far as to label Islamophobia as a term ...that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition... and its existence is criticized. In the study of the establishment of other terms describing xenophobic and racist attitudes, this was a commonly cited argument by the oppressors. The question remains why Wikipedia articles on anti-Semitism and racism towards blacks don't open with the same introduction and why those articles lack a section "criticizing the term" like the Islamophobia article. It becomes painfully obvious why many liberal and moderate Muslim websites and mailing lists within the United States and Europe regular cite Wikipedia articles to demonstrate the perpetual anti-Islamic/Islamophobic atmosphere post-9/11.

Although I am Catholic, when I supported an evidence-based position against the popular beliefs of other editors on the Talk:Islamism page (before I ever edited), I was wrongly labeled an Islamist until I revealed my religion. This was an attempt by other editors to railroad me into a defensive position and with the eventual goal of silencing me since my evidence didn't pander to their Islamophobic biases. No Administrators stepped in, no bans were handed out for this misconduct, and my opinion was sidelined not because it was factually wrong but because it didn't "feel right" to other editors. No matter how much rock-solid evidence is provided, Islamic articles are very much driven by a democracy (loudest voice wins) counter to Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy). Unfortunately, these days attacking Muslims and Islam is a respected sport even on Wikipedia. I understand why Muslim Wikipedians are refusing the participate here and the powers-that-be in Wiki land need to make some serious policy decisions regarding the future of Islam-related articles. Are Administrators going to support factually-correct NPOV articles counter to the current Islamophobic atmosphere or are they going to continue to ostracise editors relying on facts that may happen to portray Muslims as something other than a menace to the earth? If Administrators cannot be troubled to do this because of their own biases, then this template needs to be undeleted. Although, judging from how Administrators have conducted themselves thus far, I know this template will be shot down. I certainly hope I'm wrong and this won't be yet another pointed example of the systematic anti-Islamic bias in the English Wikipedia. Remember, this template is a symptom of a problem not being addressed and is the only avenue to counter the growing tide of Islamophobia on Wikipedia. 24.7.141.159 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. "This article or section contains unfair critique on Islam and does not represent a view shared by many Muslims." Countering systemic bias? No. This isn't so much a fork of {{POV}} as the opposite of {{POV}} (in the cases where an article was anti-Muslim, {{POV}} would suffice). I've got nothing against Islam - in fact, for an anticlericalist, I've got a lot for it - but 'this article is not sufficiently pro-Islam' is a phrase that should never appear in the metadata of a secular encyclopaedia, along with 'this article is too pro-Islam', 'this article is not sufficiently pro-Christian', 'this article is not sufficiently pro-LGBT' and any others in that vein. The only phrase that should appear in that context is 'this article is not sufficiently neutral'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JZG, failing which per Angr. Henry^Flower 23:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/kd Sam Blanning has it exactly right. This template was essentially a mechanism for biased POV fighting over article content: I consider that a textbook example of a T1 divisive speedy done well. No call for a TfD here. Xoloz 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Samuel Blanning, does the expression "unfair critique" seem rather subjectively based? And counter to User:24.7.141.159's notion of systemic anti-Muslimism on Wikipedia, I've in fact encountered a number of sources saying that there's too much pro-Muslimism in Wikipedia. Why just the creation of this biased template by a non-Muslim (User:Raphael1) alone is counter to such notions. Netscott 02:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Seeing as how you are party to many of these wars against Islam on Wikipedia, I find it rather interesting that you'd go on record claiming there is too much pro-Muslimism on Wikipedia. 24.7.141.159 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm, "war against Islam" that's an interesting way to put it... I'd sooner say "war against POV". I don't know if you've reviewed my contributions but if you do you'll sooner get the impression that my edits are in accord with WP:AGF. I'll admit though what does bother me is when editors try to glorify a given topic. Wikipedia isn't for glorification, it's for a balanced NPOV. I think if you completely read this and this you'll get a better view of my character as an editor. Netscott 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted as per above, uselessly derisive template when a simple POV template would have fit just as well. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, utterly useless, derisive, and redundant template, given the existence of {{POV}}. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion subject to the removal of all anti-Islamic material from Wiki; otherwise this is a valid POV to hold, and the template is more specific than merely {{POV}}.
• Very strong keep deleted. No reason why Islam as a subject should have special protection from articles its believers do not like. David | Talk 10:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• You are misinterpreting the template as many others seem to do. This templates purpose is not to protect Islam from articles its believers do not like, but to protect Wikipedia from editors, who use Wikipedia as a platform for their crusade against Islam. Raphael1 12:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Like {{POV}}, you mean? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but more specific resp. precise. Raphael1 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unnecessary. The {POV} tag says "see Talk", and on Talk you can give exactly the level of detail pertinent to the particular problem with that article. What you are asking for sounds a lot like affirmative action, which is unlikely to go down well here, systemic bias notwithstanding. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
                      • Sure it's an argument. Just an invalid one per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 21:07, 11 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)
• While policy in theory trumps AfD, one of the main purposes of AfD is to interpret and apply policy. I think that the AfD process could be somewhat likened to a criminal trial - the jury (the community) is bound to obey the law (policy), and the closing admin is somewhat akin to judge. Like in a jury trial, then, the only part of the process subject to appeal is the actions of the judge (closing admin), and not the decisions of the jury, unless, like in a real appeal, new evidence comes to light, in which case there is a "retrial". What you, Guy, are saying is that the judge was incorrect not to overrule the jury, which is ridiculous. --David.Mestel 11:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if we really want to wikilawyer, then you're missing the fact that if there is insufficient evidence in a legal case (i.e. the alleged facts cannot be verified or corroberated) then the judge is bound to instruct the jury to aquit, whatever the jury's inclination. If the judge fails to do that, then the case may be appealed. A result of 'not verifiable, but keep anyway' is an illegitimate result as it breeches non-negotiable policy. We delete unverifiable stuff, regardless of any alleged consensus to do otherwise.--Doc ^ask? 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• One good Wikilawyer deserves another. The "presumption of innocence" in terms of article retention is in favour of keeping them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, though I think he was referring to the general principle of a judge instructing a jury. But my analogy works even here. While I think that it can be legitimate for an admin to keep an article against a consensus to delete if there is some policy issue, they should not delete it against consensus to keep, but perhaps relist it on a new AfD if some new evidence has come to like. Similarly, in a real trial, the judge can compel the jury to acquit (the equivalent of deciding to keep the article), but a decision by the jury to do so, regardless of circumstances (except perhaps a misdirection) is final and cannot be appealed. --David.Mestel 14:09, 11 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)
        • For this? No. Because all the article says is effectively "it's on teh intarwebs so it must be true" - an argument we know to be false. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • All that article proves is that the term exists; it does not prove anything else about it. As such, the most valid inclusionist scenario would be to merge and redirect the article to a list of sexual terminology. The term's entry would simply state that it is a sexual term, but no reliable sources are available documenting what it is supposed to mean. Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, precisely that. As FloNight says, there is no reliable authority for this term. If I was of the soft and easily hurt persuasion I would be mortally offended that people who I would have thought by now knew me reasonably well appear to be accusing me of forum shopping or refusing to accept consensus. Actually the case is precisely as I stated above: this has had two bites at AfD and the best we can do in terms of a source for it is Urban Dictionary and an anonym ous entry at the online dictionary of sex. You would think that there was some kind of merit in having reliable sources for an encyclopaedia, but that appears to be suspended if the pile of shit (literally in this case) is high enough. Sure there are thousands of Google hits - there are thjousands of sniggering adolescents. But compare that with the millions you get for gen uine sexual terms - and in particular note that genuine sexual terms have references in treeware. Medical treeware, of the kind that the Founding Fathers probably had in mind when they wrote WP:V and WP:RS. We are being asked to ignore the eight hundred pound gorilla in the corner because the crown id big enough. I am not the kind of person who gets sore when they lose in a deletion debate, but neither am I a process wonk. The policy is that content must be verifiable form reliabel sources, and what's happening here is that wee are being asked to accept a lot of unrliable sources instead of one reliable one. That is not allowed. Just zis Guy you know? 20:51, 11 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)

• Yes it does, it's a review of a contested AfD result. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Forum shopping. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• SPUI, thank you for that personal attack, which I find ironic coming from someone with your history of blocks and tendentious edits. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 11 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)

• Problems already discussed, unresolved, taken to AfD and ignored in favour of "it's on teh intarweb, therfore it must exist". Hence the issue. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 11 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)

• "Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 26, 2004 - 07:37 PM" - which is why I discounted that one because it's not a reliable source. As I've been saying all along. There is no shortage of unreliabel sources, but thus far no reliable ones. Just zis Guy you know? 08:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Wrong forum for this. I "voted" to delete this in the AfD but would now switch to keep based on the obsessive nominations.-- JJay 01:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. DRV is not a venue to overturn keep decisions. The article should be kept, and if necessary, relisted on AfD. --Myles Long 03:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep kept While DRV can overturn AfD and delete, it shouldn't do so here. Verifiability is a key concern, as are reliable sources. Any good academic knows that what constitutes a reliable source changing depending on the context: when dealing with vulgar matters, less rigorous sources are acceptable, provided they are rationally vetted. As an erstwhile cultural historian, I reject wholeheartedly the notion that vulgar matters are unencyclopedic in themselves. Here, we have a vulgar matter sourced in several popular media -- that is sufficient. Calls for verifiability policing, though well-intentioned, are here expecting the wrong sort of sources, or at that is what I think is happening. Xoloz 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep kept. Just in case my earlier comments were not abundantly clear, the stated purpose of DRV is to review disputed deletions, not disputed keeps. If there is any concern regarding the keep-worthyness of this article, feel free to relist it in the appropriate forum. Silensor 05:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, was kept in AfD twice, process was followed, what more do you want?  Grue  06:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Process to be followed. Namely: "AfD is not a vote". There were no valid keep votes, in as much as not one of them countered the observed fact that there is no verifiability form reliable sources for this. Just zis Guy you know? 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia:Consensus" → "Wikipedia:What Just Zis Guy Thinks" hereby added to WP:RM. :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or relist (pick whichever one has more support). Even if we pretend that WP is a democracy, a number of the keep votes in the recent AfD used rationales not based in policy, and were made by unregistered or new users. Under normal AfD practice, their votes would be discounted, whether or not we consider AfD a vote. Most of those calling to keep the article used rationales like WP not being censored, but that was never the issue in the first place. The issue is whether the article is: 1) verifiable with reliable sources; 2) notable. As such, since the keep voters didn't answer these issues, the AfD was incorrectly closed and the article should be deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Some concerns over the sources' reliability, but this term does pop up in several online slang dictionaries (which are not blacklisted on WP:RS), so the result is not entirely far-fetched. Without a consensus to delete, I think the admin's closing decision was the only correct one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. JzG, can we please be a little more realistic here? Does the article need work? Absolutely, and if I weren't on pseudo-wikibreak right now, I'd do it, but there are plenty of verifiable references to this thing. It's been mentioned multiple times in popular culture, it's gotten mention in a major media source, and that's just what's been mentioned here and in the AfD you're contesting. Your problem isn't the article's existence, it's the way the article has been written. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - WP:V says it can't be overuled by editor consensous. Unless it can be demonstrated as verifiable by WP:RS, the concensous of editors at the two AfDs is irrelevent. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT, why is this even up here? The result was keep, not delete. Only deleted entries can be brought to this venue. In addition the article is sourced so claims of WP:VER are misplaced. JohnnyBGood 17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to discussion above before making yourself look silly, please. And it's one thing to cite any old thing, and another to cite reliable sources. Johnleemk | Talk 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How does it "make me look silly"? Those souces are acceptable reliable souces. You're not going to find any encylocpedic or academic articles on taking a dump on your sex partner's chest. It's just a tad bit taboo in our Puritan based society. Besides which that still doesn't explain how an article that was consensus kept is suddenly on deletion review which is reserved for deleted articles. JohnnyBGood 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You are making yourself silly by having missed the previous discussion on the validity of this DRV: "'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)" And you don't need academic sources -- nobody said that at all. But it's surprising that nobody's dug up a magazine or news publication or even a website published by people with some editorial standards (i.e. not Joe Blogg's blog, nor his website, nor his article on a wiki -- unless this fellow is a renowned expert in the field of sex nomenclature). The best thing we've come up with so far is a reference to "Cleveland Steamer" in a sexual context by a gossip column, which only verifies that: 1) the term exists; 2) the term is somehow related to sex. The said reference does not even explain the precise meaning of the phrase, so the only thing in the article currently verifiable is that it is a phrase used to refer to an unknown sexual act. Furthermore, consensus does not trump verifiability, as JiFish said. (And whether there was consensus at all in the first place is highly questionable.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • So multiple pop culture references don't matter in this case? The article can't be cleaned up to reflect what is "verifiable" within a context of when it's been used and referenced, such as Dan Savage and Family Guy and the Tenacious D song? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The article should then confine itself to discussion of the references in pop culture -- but even so, this would make it, at best, either a candidate for merging with a better article or a Wiktionary candidate. (Yes, Wiktionary covers etymological history, etc., not just the plain meanings of the phrase.) All it is is some sexual phrase, whose only usage, as far as we have managed to ascertain, is confined to a few movies or TV shows, and one San Francisco columnist. Johnleemk | Talk 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment So-called sexual perversions are well documented in psychological and medical texts going back over a century. Whole books are written specific to sexual psychopathia. I've looked through my collection of antique and recent books. I see nothing similar to Cleveland steamer in these books. If someone can find a reference in an academic book, I will change my opinion and vote. FloNight ^talk 19:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep this please it has 83000 google hits even Yuckfoo 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed - and not one of them a reliable source. In fact, given the cruft multiple of anything sophomoric and smutty, 83k Ghits is practically invisible :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a popular culture phenomenon and widespread meme. And for the record, I find the idea of conducting an AfD at DRV absolutely ludicrous. --Cyde Weys 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Dispite what some users seem to think, this isn't a repeat AfD. It is a review of a AfD decision. I personally think the AfD was closed incorrectly and I'm not the only one. Only allowing delete decisions to be reviewed would be more ludicrous. 212.13.213.48 08:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist - firstly, this article still has no reliable sources. Secondly, the closing of the second AFD was pure votecounting, violating WP:NOT a democracy, and the closing admin didn't take the fact that many of the "keep" votes were from sock-or-meat-puppets most likely brought in from external sources. Alphax ^τεχ 10:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First they came for Cleveland steamer... Ewlyahoocom 14:59, 12 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)

So be it, the page will be re-written in order to comply. Don't complain to me about not understanding, if you would have read the page and/or pages, the latter comment would not have been asked.

I did read it (using my Super Powers). There was the assertion that they are unique, but it was not backed by citations from reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 11 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)
• Endorse: It does seem that, in this case, there was an overwhelming consensus to delete. One general point, though. I think that people are a little to ready to assume bad faith and accuse people (albeit obliquely) of sockpuppetry due to few edits. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to suggest that they may not yet have enough experience on Wikipedia to form a balanced opinion (unless of course there is clear evidence that they are socks). --David.Mestel 06:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A person whose Internet history show a long history of blatant self-promotion, whose imdb article was written by his manager, who has done nothing of significance but keeps showing up in "news" reports as being the "leading candidate" for major roles like James Bond and Thor, whose supposed fame cannot be verified by any newspaper reports of him, whose article is being edited and supported by brand new users whose only edits are to his page or articles related to his page. Sure, it's reasonable to assume good faith on all of those people. </sarcasm>. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:38, 11 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)
• Ultra-weak relist: While the AfD was clearly closed in process, due to an overwhelming consensus among experienced editors, I think that the new evidence presented about the large number of participants just about warrants giving it another chance. --David.Mestel 07:01, 11 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)
    • Easy - if a large majority of editors (70% as a rough guideline in this case) agree on something, it is consensus. --David.Mestel 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's a bit simplistic, but still... --David.Mestel 11:27, 11 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)

It's almost exactly the same as the deleted version, the only addition being the claim that he shows up on infomercials. What magic transformation has it undergone? --Calton | Talk 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but it looks tasty with some CSD A1 sauce... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Listed on AfD. If we had had an article on Video Professor, I would have redirected it there. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD if so desired. Silensor 21:11, 11 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)
• Comment: This is unrelated to the deletion discussion, but should someone put at the top that there is an article on the comedian George Gobel, in the off chance that someone would misspell his name? Mike H. That's hot 08:24, 11 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)

Recently concluded

2006 April

1. Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal Closure as redirect endorsed unanimously. 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. List of films about phantom or sentient animals Closure endorsed unanimously/kept deleted. 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Feminists Against Censorship Speedily (and unanimously) overturned and restored. 09:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Waldo's wallpaper Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth Deletion closure endorsed. 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Template:Kosovo-geo-stub Deletion closure endorsed. 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
7. HAI2U Deletion closure endorsed; no consensus on redirect created during DRV debate - take to RfD if there are objections. 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Anabasii restored [4] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[5] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [6] 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. [7] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [8] 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 [9]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [10] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [11] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [12] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [13] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [14] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [15] 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 [16] 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. [17] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [18] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[19] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[20] 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. [21] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [22] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [23] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [24] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [25] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [26] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [27] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [28] 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. [29] 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. [30] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [31] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [32] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [33], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [34] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [35] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [36] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [37] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [38] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [39] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [40] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [41] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [42] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [43] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [44] 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 [45]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. [46] 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)

12 April 2006

Daniel Brandt

A 4th AFD nom was created today, speedy kept by me after 10 minutes with a note to bring the result of the 3rd nom to here, DRV. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (3rd nomination). No vote. NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 01:33 UTC (2006-04-12)

• Endorse closure/continue to keep The nomination in the 4th AfD was plainly out-of-process in its reasoning. A subject's dislike of his article is no reason for deletion. Full stop. I would support speedy closure of any debate that used that as its sole deletion justification; in this case, with three prior AfDs, the logic in closing this one is even stronger. I suggest Brandt be given GNAA treatment, and that all subsequent AfD noms be closed immediately, at least until a specified time passes. Xoloz 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/Keep kept (?). Not this again. Yes, snowball clause, this article has already been AfDed so many times (and DRVed before too, I think). This is fast becoming the new GNAA. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep as permanent monument of trolling, just as the GNAA. — Apr. 12, '06 [03:48] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Keep article w.protect; consider (based on their rationale) referring future AfD nominators to the Admin Cabal, for bad faith. -- Simon Cursitor 07:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. "Disrespecting this guy by having an article on him when he clearly doesn't want one is a personal attack". Not even close to a valid reasoning, WP:NPA applies to Wikipedia editors, not subjects of articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 4th closure (although there would have been little harm in letting the 3rd run). I have concerns here, Brandt is only marginally notable (although he's becoming notorious in wikipedia - but that isn't grounds to keep as it would make the article a self reference). I fear we are in danger of creating an Emmanuel Goldstein hate figure for ourselves, and that isn't healthy and it becomes publicity this guy does not deserve (nor, so he says, desire). Would it hurt so much to delete this thing and walk away? --Doc ^ask? 09:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse 4th closure And Doc, yes it would hurt to delete. As you observe he is "marginally notable" that's enough for him to be on Wikipedia. To then remove him due to his own poor behavior sets a bad precedent that self-absorbed jerks can dictate what articles are on Wikipedia. This is completely unacceptable. In any event, to compare Brandt to Emmanuel Goldstein is off the wall, Goldstein was portrayed as something of an actual threat in the book, Brandt is much more of general nuisance. JoshuaZ 12:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

'Marginally notable' bios are routinely kept or deleted depending on which way the die falls on AfD, and the place doesn't fall apart either way. The reason for keeping this seems to be 'we don't want to let Brandt win'. But why are we 'playing' this guy at all? Why do we make him matter that much to wikipedia? Where is the evidence that letting this go would open the floodgates? Brandt is no real threat to us - that's my point. But like Emmanuel Goldstein we can't seem to debate him without portraying him as this great dangerous enemy, who needs to be resisted for core ideological reasons. Why use words like 'poor behaviour' and 'self-absorbed jerk' - why is that a reason to keep an article that is more trouble than it is worth? --Doc ^ask? 13:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closures (all of them). Per policy, this article is verifiable from reliable sources, cited, neutral. Per guidelines, the subject is clearly notable, even if partly by self-reference (which is allowable, we have an article on Jimbo after all). And per Great Justice, this article is now the No. 1 Google hit for Daniel Brandt, which scores ten bonus points for irony. "All your hits are belong to us!" Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Guess I'll be put on a watch list for Endorse 3 AFds have failed. There are other articles where the person doesn't want it there they survived AfD so should this one. I do suggest that someone tighten the article up with better sourcing. Making it harder for any libel suits to be filed. --Tollwutig 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

11 April 2006

Evan Lee Dahl

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Lee Dahl

I would like to edit an article for actor Evan Lee Dahl. He was deleted months ago. They said that he wasn't a notable actor. He has since won 2 awards. The 2006 Young Artist Award and the 2006 Method Fest Award. I would like to write a new article, but R. Koot categorized it as Protected Deleted Pages and gave it a g4. Of course this is going to be a recreation of deleted material. The only difference is that the actor is now an Award Winning Actor. Just Me 17:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, the awards were not notable, and neither is he. This has been hashed out and rehased a couple of times now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question. Can you point us to reliable sources that give biographical accounts of this individual, sufficiently comprehensive that an encyclopedic entry may be written on him? Thanks —Encephalon 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE, THE AWARDS ARE BOTH LISTED AS NOTABLE ON IMDB.COM, THE AWARDS ARE SO NEW THAT THE 2006 IS NOT LISTED YET. DON'T BE MEAN. Just Me 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: We are not being "mean". We are holding ourselves to some fairly strict and non-negotiable standards of verifiability. Please note that IMBD is not generally considered a particularly reliable source. The other sites you list below will need to be evaluated. In the meantime, I have a personal request. Please stop shouting (that is, take off your CAPS LOCK key). Rossami (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, but I think recreation a rewrite would be fine if reliable sources can be provided and it's written in a more encyclopedic style. It would at least require a new afd due to changed circumsances. —Ruud 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• ANSWER - THE RELIABLE SOURCES THUS FAR WOULD BE TO GO TO THE WEBSITES WHERE THE AWARD WINNERS ARE POSTED. (YOU HAVE A LOT OF AWARD WINNING CHILD ACTORS ON YOUR SITE AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD EVAN.) TRY WWW.METHODFEST.COM AND SCROLL DOWN. YOU CAN SEE A PICTURE OF EVAN WITH HIS TROPHY. ALSO, GO TO HTTP://WWW.YOUNGARTISTAWARDS.ORG/NOMS27.HTM AND SCROLL DOWN. EVAN'S NAME WILL BE IN RED (AS ARE ALL THE WINNERS). THANK YOU. Just Me 18:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, still NN. KimvdLinde 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. These are not the Oscars. Just zis Guy you know? 20:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion The evidence presented is insufficient for me to question my own vote in the AfD at issue, way back in November. I see no reason to revisit the issue in a new debate, as the awards mentioned appear minor. Xoloz 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, information presented here is insufficient to overturn the AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Child actors do not compete for an Oscar, they compete worldwide for the past 27 years for the prestigous Young Artist Award. Some of the best adult actors have been nominated and/or received this award when they were younger. I realize that I would need to re-write this article in a more encyclopedia-ish style. A lot of the child actors on this site are here because they have won this award. The MethodFest Award is new to me. It had mostly adults competeing. :)Just Me 16:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• (Thanks for not writing in caps. :) Can you list one or two of the actors who have Wikipedia articles solely on the basis of having won this award? · rodii · 17:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recently I visited the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. On the wall is the list of winners of the Gold Medal. It is an illustrious list, including the likes of Jacqueline du Pré and Bryn Terfel. It also contains a lot of names which I, an avid buyer of classical music, have never come across at all. Famous people often win youth awards - but not everyone who wins those same awards necessarily goes on to become famous. Just zis Guy you know? 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. AfD was validly closed. All "keep" votes appear to be ballot stuffing. With my AdministrativePower®, I have looked at the deleted article, and it reads like vanity. "Evan Lee Dahl" gets about 500 Google hits. JIP | Talk 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SFEDI

SFEDI, a UK organization, was speedy deleted and the following log was made:

20:52, 7 April 2006 Mathwiz2020 deleted "SFEDI" (CSD A7)

Here's the SFEDI website, which was provided to me by the creator of the SFEDI article, User:TobyJ, who's upset about the article's deletion. It's pretty clear that SFEDI is an organization, and as such, A7 is inapplicable. Not knowing what was in the article, I can only suspect that it should have probably gone to AfD. I dropped a note to User:Mathwiz2020 about this as well. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The article does not assert sufficient notability. If information to buttress such a claim is found, then do recreate the article. Johnleemk | Talk 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • But how can I see inside of it? I am not an admin. Thanks. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Complete content was "SFEDI is the Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative, a private company that works under contract to the UK government to develop occupational standards for small business managers and advisers.". User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• In that case, I vote to Overturn deletion b/c A7 is improper for these contents, and open AfD discussion. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, expand, and list on AfD. No specific claim of notability is made but A7 does not specifically apply to companies. In the meantime more information should be found and confirmed. David | Talk 19:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well now. A7 does not apply to companies, but to be fair the author did not do much of a job of showing why we should care. Why not write a real article instead of a one-liner? Something which gives some kind of indication what the firm is supposed to be notable for? AfD on the existing content is a waste of effort - the article needs to be (a) more encyclopaedic or (b) gone, and the best way to kick-start more encyclopaedic is for one of those people who cares to create at least a decent stub. So: endorse status quo with no prejudice whatsoever against creation of a genuine article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and expand this please, A7 was an improper deletion. Relist on AFD if notability is being questioned. Silensor 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted In my opinion, a business (or, as the article said, "private company") can qualify as CSD A7 ("unremarkable people or groups"). Even if it didn't, it could be CSD'd under A3 (no content). If it was overturned, it would fail to meet WP:CORP and stay deleted, so why snowball it? --M@thwiz2020 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CORP is a consensus call. Besides, it's not perfectly hopeless, IMHO. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and AfD Article is presently poor, but it is not covered by A7 (nor A3, as it is a fine, reasonably precise sentence), and I cannot in good faith snowball it, either. AfD might bring forth more facts in support of notability. Xoloz 02:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD, there are sufficient questions about this company to warrant an AfD instead of a speedy. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion -- UK quango therefore arguably recordable. -- Simon Cursitor 07:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a CSD A3 (empty article), but allow and encourage recreation. Undelete iff someone wants to use that sentence in the new article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Kat Shoob

After the page was deleted, I replied to an admin about this article after I received the following message:

• Hello, Mr.bonus. It has been decided on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Shoob that Kat Shoob be deleted. Please do not re-create this article without a very good reason. -- PFHLai 11:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My reply:

• Hi, you don't want people e-mailing you so I'll stick this here instead. I want to say that you deleted my page and linked to an old deletion discussion. The argument was that she wasn't famous enough, she is now on ITV1 and part of a presenting team who all have Wikipedia pages. My article has changed drastically and is a worthy addition to Wiki. There is no reason to delete it. I thought admin had to check if the article changed before using speedy deletion - you can't be doing your job right if that's it. Check The Mint page and The Mint official website to see how popular she is. Also, stop picking on this article when there are thousands of pages all over Wikipedia about people less famous or notable.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.bonus (talk • contribs) .

PFHLai's reply:

• : Frankly, there are more than thousands of similar wikipages about minor celebrities that should be deleted. Okay. I'll leave Kat Shoob alone for now. Good luck. BTW, may I suggest using Image:The mint tv.jpg ? Image:Kat Shoob.jpg is of poor quality. --PFHLai 12:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My reply:

• : Thanks. I'll consider getting a better image. --User:Mr.bonus

This admin read the previous version of the page and admitted it had changed significantly and subsequently allowed the page. Someone else has since used 'speedy deletion' after reading only the previous discussion (which was only based on the original article).

• Reasons to reinstate the article follow: The Kat Shoob page is now protected. The admin are using this discussion as reason to delete the page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Shoob. This argument is old and the reason the page was deleted then was because she wasn't famous enough. Kat has had a speedy rise to fame and is now on ITV1 presenting a daily show alongside Brian Dowling (who has a detailed Wikipedia page) where she also regularly interviews famous celebrity guests such as Ricky Tomlinson. Her popularity can also be determined by the fact that ITV are using her in all promotional images of their show The Mint. The Mint is notable for being the flagship programme of ITV's brand new channel ITV Play, where Kat is also a presenter on one of the channel's other shows. This page has become a soft-target solely because I first made the page when she wasn't a known celebrity. The page itself hasn't merely been re-submitted but has been improved. There is no valid reason to lower the quality and amount of information being offered by the article The Mint just to maintain this vendetta against the 'Kat Shoob' page. Regarding the TV show that The Mint replaces which previously occupied the same slot in ITV's schedule Quizmania, every presenter had a wikipedia page. These programs are very popular and have a large following of people that often update and add information to the wiki pages of such shows.

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Not every TV presenter on an obscure programme on a little-watched channel is notable. Deleted article was almost entirely trivial. If subject makes it big then she can have a proper article. David | Talk 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstate the page. Did you look at the last article? It is not entirely trivial at all, and is ITV1 a little-watched channel? I think you've read the wrong one. Look at the latest version of the article and you'll see that she has definitely made it big enough to warrant an article. This seems to be a biased opinion based on the fact that the article was deleted in the past. How can you say "delete" in a knee-jerk manner without researching the subject? Please look at the newer, improved article and the related articles; The Mint page and ITV Play page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.69.123 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse decision, keep deleted No errors in process, no obvious significant changes since then. In short, not obviously more significant that the average barrel girl. Suggest user waits 12 months to see if notability rises, then reapply with new evidence for notability. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. A British television presenter's notability can't raise much more than a host on ITV1. By the way, BenAveling, if you're not admin, how do you know what the old article consisted of compared to the new one?
• Undelete and list on AfD this is not the place to discuss how notable whe is. Septentrionalis 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse decision, keep deleted. As a participant in the original deletion discussion, I do not see any new reasons to keep the article being raised here, just the old ones rehashed in the hope that a newer audience might buy them. I also recall Mr Bonus saying "So go ahead and delete the page it's not like I'm ever going to return here." Somehow I doubted that at the time, and the fact that he went back on his word doesn't argue for good faith.

The rationale for keeping this page remains the same: when she has sufficient notability outside any attempt to use a Wikipedia article to generate it. When she does commercials, guest appearances on TV shows etc., when there are tons and tons of fan sites, then I'll say yes. But Wikipedia is not a buzz generator. Daniel Case 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. When the Trivia section contains more meat than the main article you know you are in Cruftland. After reading the article I now know less than I did before. Just zis Guy you know? 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Why should The Mint page have blue links on all presenters excepting her (when she is the only ITV Play presenter to be hosting two out of their three shows and features on all the channel's promotional material)? Its removal isn't doing anything for the betterment of Wikipedia. The bottom line is if this page wasn't created a few months ago, and therefore didn't have a prior deletion discussion attached to it, nobody would have started one and it would be allowed to stay. All your side's arguments are nothing more than nit-picking in order to keep it deleted. Someone said; "She may be famous one day. Let's let that day be the day this article is accepted for reposting". When she became a presenter on ITV and in order to enhance 'The Mint' and 'ITV Play' pages, I decided to try and write a new article and put her back on, but I knew exactly what would happen. She would have to become the queen of England to be allowed back on now. What about the category - 'British television presenters'? I would think there is no higher qualification to be featured here than hosting a programme on either BBC or ITV. How does someone acheive a level of fame equal to Jack Nicholson (and therefore be allowed on Wiki without qualms because they have "tons and tons of fan sites") within the 'British television presenters' category? Did anyone even read my reasons for keeping the page and research everything related to it? Is anybody even able to compare the articles? You all seem to be doing nothing but taking text from the first deletion discussion and using them as reasons the new article shouldn't stay (and therefore voting 'no' for the sake of it). Obviously the Admin who reinstated the article counts for nothing...
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep, Why isn't there a rule that says only admin can vote? There has been 3 users voting in this and unless there admin, they can't even look at the articles we are discussing. These votes are null but they obviously count against my page...
• keep, Whether you think it’s an article on a fluffy subject or not, many other people are interested in TV presenters and the programmes they present. All pages don’t have to be about people who have changed the world in some way. I have come up with plenty of reasons why it is a relevant page, and all your argument consists of is pointing to your precious ‘notability guidelines’. These guidelines are serving no purpose other than being a loophole for people like you to use when there’s a page on something you don’t like. If these are actually the ‘rules’ why are there reams of pages that nobody is bothering to shut down?

The issue of my pages deletion has now become a matter of principle for me. I’d accept this decision and actually be happy with it, if you prove to me that these guidelines aren’t a wretched excuse to pick on pages that have incensed you in some way and that they are in place and are being upheld for the good of Wikipedia. If my page goes, there are thousands of other pages that should and if you care so damn much about the notability guidelines that you incessantly reference, do something about it. What good is going to all this trouble to remove just one page going to serve? Prove that these guidelines mean something; go and delete the thousands of other far more useless pages that you already know exist yet choose to turn a blind eye to. You might think the easiest option is just to delete this page, but if you do, then you will have to delete every page for the presenters of the other ITV quiz show; Quizmania, in order to justify it. Why make Wikipedia an incoherent mess and have an article for every presenter from Quizmania and the current and more popular The Mint excepting one? The bottom line is, this is an instance where voting ‘’delete’’ yet again, isn’t the easiest option. If this page goes, all the others have to, unless you want to prove what I suspected all along; that you are discriminating against this page.

• • That fact that you have tried to make it look as if you are multiple people only damages your case. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - While if I had been involved in the AfD I probabily would have argued for keeping the article, the debate was closed correctly. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Posting two messages in a row doesn't mean I am trying to be two people. I am just making two points.

Template:No Crusade

The text of this template was: This article or section contains unfair critique on Islam and does not represent a view shared by many Muslims. Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

As you can see on the Templates for deletion page User:Freakofnurture removed the [[Template::No Crusade]], which I have created for countering systemic bias. The Template was neither divisive nor inflammatory. It did not express more prejudice towards wikipedians than i.e. Template:TrollWarning does. Raphael1 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I don't think the template meets the definition of "divisive and inflammatory" and hence it should not have been speedied. On the other hand, I don't think the template is necessary, as a simple {{POV}} with adequate discussion on the talk page is actually sufficient. Following policy strictly I would say "undelete and re-list on TFD for proper discussion", however if that were to happen I would vote to delete it. So I guess I'll just cut through the red tape and say keep deleted despite being an out-of-process speedy. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion we already have general templates for dealing with bias, we don't need one specifically for anti-Muslim bias. Such special consideration is inflammatory and unecessary. JoshuaZ 20:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted undeleting this would just be process wonking. --Doc ^ask? 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no need for inflamatory templates. Template name is very POV (implies that there is a crusade against the muslim world) and as such already unwanted. KimvdLinde 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted- I concur with JoshuaZ and KimvdLinde’s comments above.Timothy Usher 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I have a special interest in issues of systemic bias at Wikipedia but in this case the template is POV. I also think the speedy delete was justified under a ruling Jimbo made about "divisive and inflammatory" templates a while back (but I can't find the link to this right now--anyone else have it?)--Alabamaboy 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion since it is precisely as stated: divisive. Do we have a comparable template for every other religion, including Brianism? In what way is this functionally different from {NPOV}? Just zis Guy you know? 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I'm bothered by the presence of a concerted war against Muslim editors on Wikipedia or any editor who happens to accidentally portray Muslims in a positive light in the process of presenting an factually-correct NPOV article. Article after article either needs to support the current collective atmosphere of Islamophobia (aka anti-Islam, aka attitudes synonymous with anti-Semitism but directed towards Muslims) fostered by the War on Terror or editors are banned and run out of town. Recent battlegrounds include Islamism, Islamophobia, and Islamofacism articles. For example, Wikipedia even goes are far as to label Islamophobia as a term ...that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition... and its existence is criticized. In the study of the establishment of other terms describing xenophobic and racist attitudes, this was a commonly cited argument by the oppressors. The question remains why Wikipedia articles on anti-Semitism and racism towards blacks don't open with the same introduction and why those articles lack a section "criticizing the term" like the Islamophobia article. It becomes painfully obvious why many liberal and moderate Muslim websites and mailing lists within the United States and Europe regular cite Wikipedia articles to demonstrate the perpetual anti-Islamic/Islamophobic atmosphere post-9/11.

Although I am Catholic, when I supported an evidence-based position against the popular beliefs of other editors on the Talk:Islamism page (before I ever edited), I was wrongly labeled an Islamist until I revealed my religion. This was an attempt by other editors to railroad me into a defensive position and with the eventual goal of silencing me since my evidence didn't pander to their Islamophobic biases. No Administrators stepped in, no bans were handed out for this misconduct, and my opinion was sidelined not because it was factually wrong but because it didn't "feel right" to other editors. No matter how much rock-solid evidence is provided, Islamic articles are very much driven by a democracy (loudest voice wins) counter to Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy). Unfortunately, these days attacking Muslims and Islam is a respected sport even on Wikipedia. I understand why Muslim Wikipedians are refusing the participate here and the powers-that-be in Wiki land need to make some serious policy decisions regarding the future of Islam-related articles. Are Administrators going to support factually-correct NPOV articles counter to the current Islamophobic atmosphere or are they going to continue to ostracise editors relying on facts that may happen to portray Muslims as something other than a menace to the earth? If Administrators cannot be troubled to do this because of their own biases, then this template needs to be undeleted. Although, judging from how Administrators have conducted themselves thus far, I know this template will be shot down. I certainly hope I'm wrong and this won't be yet another pointed example of the systematic anti-Islamic bias in the English Wikipedia. Remember, this template is a symptom of a problem not being addressed and is the only avenue to counter the growing tide of Islamophobia on Wikipedia. 24.7.141.159 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. "This article or section contains unfair critique on Islam and does not represent a view shared by many Muslims." Countering systemic bias? No. This isn't so much a fork of {{POV}} as the opposite of {{POV}} (in the cases where an article was anti-Muslim, {{POV}} would suffice). I've got nothing against Islam - in fact, for an anticlericalist, I've got a lot for it - but 'this article is not sufficiently pro-Islam' is a phrase that should never appear in the metadata of a secular encyclopaedia, along with 'this article is too pro-Islam', 'this article is not sufficiently pro-Christian', 'this article is not sufficiently pro-LGBT' and any others in that vein. The only phrase that should appear in that context is 'this article is not sufficiently neutral'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JZG, failing which per Angr. Henry^Flower 23:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/kd Sam Blanning has it exactly right. This template was essentially a mechanism for biased POV fighting over article content: I consider that a textbook example of a T1 divisive speedy done well. No call for a TfD here. Xoloz 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Samuel Blanning, does the expression "unfair critique" seem rather subjectively based? And counter to User:24.7.141.159's notion of systemic anti-Muslimism on Wikipedia, I've in fact encountered a number of sources saying that there's too much pro-Muslimism in Wikipedia. Why just the creation of this biased template by a non-Muslim (User:Raphael1) alone is counter to such notions. Netscott 02:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Seeing as how you are party to many of these wars against Islam on Wikipedia, I find it rather interesting that you'd go on record claiming there is too much pro-Muslimism on Wikipedia. 24.7.141.159 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm, "war against Islam" that's an interesting way to put it... I'd sooner say "war against POV". I don't know if you've reviewed my contributions but if you do you'll sooner get the impression that my edits are in accord with WP:AGF. I'll admit though what does bother me is when editors try to glorify a given topic. Wikipedia isn't for glorification, it's for a balanced NPOV. I think if you completely read this and this you'll get a better view of my character as an editor. Netscott 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted as per above, uselessly derisive template when a simple POV template would have fit just as well. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, utterly useless, derisive, and redundant template, given the existence of {{POV}}. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion subject to the removal of all anti-Islamic material from Wiki; otherwise this is a valid POV to hold, and the template is more specific than merely {{POV}}.
• Very strong keep deleted. No reason why Islam as a subject should have special protection from articles its believers do not like. David | Talk 10:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• You are misinterpreting the template as many others seem to do. This templates purpose is not to protect Islam from articles its believers do not like, but to protect Wikipedia from editors, who use Wikipedia as a platform for their crusade against Islam. Raphael1 12:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Like {{POV}}, you mean? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but more specific resp. precise. Raphael1 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unnecessary. The {POV} tag says "see Talk", and on Talk you can give exactly the level of detail pertinent to the particular problem with that article. What you are asking for sounds a lot like affirmative action, which is unlikely to go down well here, systemic bias notwithstanding. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
                      • Sure it's an argument. Just an invalid one per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Some of the alledged "references" are absolutely unacceptable and should be nowhere near this site. The most recent I looked at [47] 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)
• While policy in theory trumps AfD, one of the main purposes of AfD is to interpret and apply policy. I think that the AfD process could be somewhat likened to a criminal trial - the jury (the community) is bound to obey the law (policy), and the closing admin is somewhat akin to judge. Like in a jury trial, then, the only part of the process subject to appeal is the actions of the judge (closing admin), and not the decisions of the jury, unless, like in a real appeal, new evidence comes to light, in which case there is a "retrial". What you, Guy, are saying is that the judge was incorrect not to overrule the jury, which is ridiculous. --David.Mestel 11:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if we really want to wikilawyer, then you're missing the fact that if there is insufficient evidence in a legal case (i.e. the alleged facts cannot be verified or corroberated) then the judge is bound to instruct the jury to aquit, whatever the jury's inclination. If the judge fails to do that, then the case may be appealed. A result of 'not verifiable, but keep anyway' is an illegitimate result as it breeches non-negotiable policy. We delete unverifiable stuff, regardless of any alleged consensus to do otherwise.--Doc ^ask? 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• One good Wikilawyer deserves another. The "presumption of innocence" in terms of article retention is in favour of keeping them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, though I think he was referring to the general principle of a judge instructing a jury. But my analogy works even here. While I think that it can be legitimate for an admin to keep an article against a consensus to delete if there is some policy issue, they should not delete it against consensus to keep, but perhaps relist it on a new AfD if some new evidence has come to like. Similarly, in a real trial, the judge can compel the jury to acquit (the equivalent of deciding to keep the article), but a decision by the jury to do so, regardless of circumstances (except perhaps a misdirection) is final and cannot be appealed. --David.Mestel 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• The episode of Family Guy that mentioned this meme was "Mr. Saturday Knight" [48]. 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)
        • For this? No. Because all the article says is effectively "it's on teh intarwebs so it must be true" - an argument we know to be false. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • All that article proves is that the term exists; it does not prove anything else about it. As such, the most valid inclusionist scenario would be to merge and redirect the article to a list of sexual terminology. The term's entry would simply state that it is a sexual term, but no reliable sources are available documenting what it is supposed to mean. Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, precisely that. As FloNight says, there is no reliable authority for this term. If I was of the soft and easily hurt persuasion I would be mortally offended that people who I would have thought by now knew me reasonably well appear to be accusing me of forum shopping or refusing to accept consensus. Actually the case is precisely as I stated above: this has had two bites at AfD and the best we can do in terms of a source for it is Urban Dictionary and an anonym ous entry at the online dictionary of sex. You would think that there was some kind of merit in having reliable sources for an encyclopaedia, but that appears to be suspended if the pile of shit (literally in this case) is high enough. Sure there are thousands of Google hits - there are thjousands of sniggering adolescents. But compare that with the millions you get for gen uine sexual terms - and in particular note that genuine sexual terms have references in treeware. Medical treeware, of the kind that the Founding Fathers probably had in mind when they wrote WP:V and WP:RS. We are being asked to ignore the eight hundred pound gorilla in the corner because the crown id big enough. I am not the kind of person who gets sore when they lose in a deletion debate, but neither am I a process wonk. The policy is that content must be verifiable form reliabel sources, and what's happening here is that wee are being asked to accept a lot of unrliable sources instead of one reliable one. That is not allowed. Just zis Guy you know? 20:51, 11 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)

• Yes it does, it's a review of a contested AfD result. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Forum shopping. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• SPUI, thank you for that personal attack, which I find ironic coming from someone with your history of blocks and tendentious edits. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 11 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)

• Problems already discussed, unresolved, taken to AfD and ignored in favour of "it's on teh intarweb, therfore it must exist". Hence the issue. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 11 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)

• "Posted by: Anonymous on Sep 26, 2004 - 07:37 PM" - which is why I discounted that one because it's not a reliable source. As I've been saying all along. There is no shortage of unreliabel sources, but thus far no reliable ones. Just zis Guy you know? 08:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Wrong forum for this. I "voted" to delete this in the AfD but would now switch to keep based on the obsessive nominations.-- JJay 01:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. DRV is not a venue to overturn keep decisions. The article should be kept, and if necessary, relisted on AfD. --Myles Long 03:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep kept While DRV can overturn AfD and delete, it shouldn't do so here. Verifiability is a key concern, as are reliable sources. Any good academic knows that what constitutes a reliable source changing depending on the context: when dealing with vulgar matters, less rigorous sources are acceptable, provided they are rationally vetted. As an erstwhile cultural historian, I reject wholeheartedly the notion that vulgar matters are unencyclopedic in themselves. Here, we have a vulgar matter sourced in several popular media -- that is sufficient. Calls for verifiability policing, though well-intentioned, are here expecting the wrong sort of sources, or at that is what I think is happening. Xoloz 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep kept. Just in case my earlier comments were not abundantly clear, the stated purpose of DRV is to review disputed deletions, not disputed keeps. If there is any concern regarding the keep-worthyness of this article, feel free to relist it in the appropriate forum. Silensor 05:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, was kept in AfD twice, process was followed, what more do you want?  Grue  06:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Process to be followed. Namely: "AfD is not a vote". There were no valid keep votes, in as much as not one of them countered the observed fact that there is no verifiability form reliable sources for this. Just zis Guy you know? 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia:Consensus" → "Wikipedia:What Just Zis Guy Thinks" hereby added to WP:RM. :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or relist (pick whichever one has more support). Even if we pretend that WP is a democracy, a number of the keep votes in the recent AfD used rationales not based in policy, and were made by unregistered or new users. Under normal AfD practice, their votes would be discounted, whether or not we consider AfD a vote. Most of those calling to keep the article used rationales like WP not being censored, but that was never the issue in the first place. The issue is whether the article is: 1) verifiable with reliable sources; 2) notable. As such, since the keep voters didn't answer these issues, the AfD was incorrectly closed and the article should be deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Some concerns over the sources' reliability, but this term does pop up in several online slang dictionaries (which are not blacklisted on WP:RS), so the result is not entirely far-fetched. Without a consensus to delete, I think the admin's closing decision was the only correct one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. JzG, can we please be a little more realistic here? Does the article need work? Absolutely, and if I weren't on pseudo-wikibreak right now, I'd do it, but there are plenty of verifiable references to this thing. It's been mentioned multiple times in popular culture, it's gotten mention in a major media source, and that's just what's been mentioned here and in the AfD you're contesting. Your problem isn't the article's existence, it's the way the article has been written. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - WP:V says it can't be overuled by editor consensous. Unless it can be demonstrated as verifiable by WP:RS, the concensous of editors at the two AfDs is irrelevent. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT, why is this even up here? The result was keep, not delete. Only deleted entries can be brought to this venue. In addition the article is sourced so claims of WP:VER are misplaced. JohnnyBGood 17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to discussion above before making yourself look silly, please. And it's one thing to cite any old thing, and another to cite reliable sources. Johnleemk | Talk 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How does it "make me look silly"? Those souces are acceptable reliable souces. You're not going to find any encylocpedic or academic articles on taking a dump on your sex partner's chest. It's just a tad bit taboo in our Puritan based society. Besides which that still doesn't explain how an article that was consensus kept is suddenly on deletion review which is reserved for deleted articles. JohnnyBGood 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You are making yourself silly by having missed the previous discussion on the validity of this DRV: "'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)" And you don't need academic sources -- nobody said that at all. But it's surprising that nobody's dug up a magazine or news publication or even a website published by people with some editorial standards (i.e. not Joe Blogg's blog, nor his website, nor his article on a wiki -- unless this fellow is a renowned expert in the field of sex nomenclature). The best thing we've come up with so far is a reference to "Cleveland Steamer" in a sexual context by a gossip column, which only verifies that: 1) the term exists; 2) the term is somehow related to sex. The said reference does not even explain the precise meaning of the phrase, so the only thing in the article currently verifiable is that it is a phrase used to refer to an unknown sexual act. Furthermore, consensus does not trump verifiability, as JiFish said. (And whether there was consensus at all in the first place is highly questionable.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • So multiple pop culture references don't matter in this case? The article can't be cleaned up to reflect what is "verifiable" within a context of when it's been used and referenced, such as Dan Savage and Family Guy and the Tenacious D song? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The article should then confine itself to discussion of the references in pop culture -- but even so, this would make it, at best, either a candidate for merging with a better article or a Wiktionary candidate. (Yes, Wiktionary covers etymological history, etc., not just the plain meanings of the phrase.) All it is is some sexual phrase, whose only usage, as far as we have managed to ascertain, is confined to a few movies or TV shows, and one San Francisco columnist. Johnleemk | Talk 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment So-called sexual perversions are well documented in psychological and medical texts going back over a century. Whole books are written specific to sexual psychopathia. I've looked through my collection of antique and recent books. I see nothing similar to Cleveland steamer in these books. If someone can find a reference in an academic book, I will change my opinion and vote. FloNight ^talk 19:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep this please it has 83000 google hits even Yuckfoo 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed - and not one of them a reliable source. In fact, given the cruft multiple of anything sophomoric and smutty, 83k Ghits is practically invisible :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a popular culture phenomenon and widespread meme. And for the record, I find the idea of conducting an AfD at DRV absolutely ludicrous. --Cyde Weys 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Dispite what some users seem to think, this isn't a repeat AfD. It is a review of a AfD decision. I personally think the AfD was closed incorrectly and I'm not the only one. Only allowing delete decisions to be reviewed would be more ludicrous. 212.13.213.48 08:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist - firstly, this article still has no reliable sources. Secondly, the closing of the second AFD was pure votecounting, violating WP:NOT a democracy, and the closing admin didn't take the fact that many of the "keep" votes were from sock-or-meat-puppets most likely brought in from external sources. Alphax ^τεχ 10:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First they came for Cleveland steamer... Ewlyahoocom 14:59, 12 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)

So be it, the page will be re-written in order to comply. Don't complain to me about not understanding, if you would have read the page and/or pages, the latter comment would not have been asked.

I did read it (using my Super Powers). There was the assertion that they are unique, but it was not backed by citations from reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 11 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)
• Endorse: It does seem that, in this case, there was an overwhelming consensus to delete. One general point, though. I think that people are a little to ready to assume bad faith and accuse people (albeit obliquely) of sockpuppetry due to few edits. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to suggest that they may not yet have enough experience on Wikipedia to form a balanced opinion (unless of course there is clear evidence that they are socks). --David.Mestel 06:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A person whose Internet history show a long history of blatant self-promotion, whose imdb article was written by his manager, who has done nothing of significance but keeps showing up in "news" reports as being the "leading candidate" for major roles like James Bond and Thor, whose supposed fame cannot be verified by any newspaper reports of him, whose article is being edited and supported by brand new users whose only edits are to his page or articles related to his page. Sure, it's reasonable to assume good faith on all of those people. </sarcasm>. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:38, 11 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)
• Ultra-weak relist: While the AfD was clearly closed in process, due to an overwhelming consensus among experienced editors, I think that the new evidence presented about the large number of participants just about warrants giving it another chance. --David.Mestel 07:01, 11 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)
    • Easy - if a large majority of editors (70% as a rough guideline in this case) agree on something, it is consensus. --David.Mestel 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's a bit simplistic, but still... --David.Mestel 11:27, 11 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)

It's almost exactly the same as the deleted version, the only addition being the claim that he shows up on infomercials. What magic transformation has it undergone? --Calton | Talk 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but it looks tasty with some CSD A1 sauce... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Listed on AfD. If we had had an article on Video Professor, I would have redirected it there. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD if so desired. Silensor 21:11, 11 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)
• Comment: This is unrelated to the deletion discussion, but should someone put at the top that there is an article on the comedian George Gobel, in the off chance that someone would misspell his name? Mike H. That's hot 08:24, 11 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 [49]). 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)

Recently concluded

2006 April

1. Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal Closure as redirect endorsed unanimously. 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. List of films about phantom or sentient animals Closure endorsed unanimously/kept deleted. 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Feminists Against Censorship Speedily (and unanimously) overturned and restored. 09:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Waldo's wallpaper Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth Deletion closure endorsed. 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Template:Kosovo-geo-stub Deletion closure endorsed. 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
7. HAI2U Deletion closure endorsed; no consensus on redirect created during DRV debate - take to RfD if there are objections. 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Anabasii restored [50] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[51] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [52] 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. [53] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [54] 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 [55]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [56] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [57] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [58] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [59] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [60] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [61] 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 [62] 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. [63] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [64] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[65] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[66] 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. [67] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [68] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [69] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [70] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [71] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [72] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [73] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [74] 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. [75] 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. [76] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [77] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [78] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [79], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [80] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [81] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [82] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [83] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [84] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [85] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [86] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [87] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [88] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [89] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [90] 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 [91]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. [92] 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