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.

Requests for content review

• If it's at all possible, I'd like to see the deleted content on Switchtrack Alley so that I can userfy it and improve it there before resubmitting it as an article.Nathanfk13 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  This is already under discussion below. Please move your request down there. We try not to fragment discussions. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• The reason I put this here was that a user in that discussion referred me to up here. If there is a more appropriate place for it, I can say it again there, I guess.Nathanfk13 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• 16:09, 3 April 2006 Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", providing the edit summary: (complete slander). Now, obviously, his claim is false; one could argue that it's libel, but it's certainly not slander! But that's just a technicality, and I don't mean to engage in Wikilawyering, other than for comic effect; Zanimum just doesn't know the meaning of the word 'slander'. Seriously, Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", apparently because he felt it was libelous. However, he deleted a large amount of sourced, verifiable content as well, and I also dispute that it was libelous (I would opine that speedy deletion, which seems to be what occured, is appropriate in actual cases of libel.) If someone could restore, and/or make available to me the deleted version (this?), so we can come to some amicable agreement as to what is appropriate for the article, (and slander :) ) that would be appreciated. In addition, opinions as to what in the deleted article might have been considered libelous, given the verifiable sources, would be appreciated as well. There were efforts to balance the article - inclusion of positive and negative statements; admittedly, it could be less disparaging, and I'll work more on that. I would like to work toward restoring sourced claims while respecting NPOV and avoiding libelous statements. Efforts to resolve the issue have failed - Zanimum has been unresponsive to posts to the page and Talk:Upfront_Rewards. Prior to the deletion, I had done research to find further sources to back up other claims I added and would like to add, and was the only editor to make any effort to reconcile views (IIRC). I'm happy to hash this all out on the :talk page prior to edits of the article. Elvey 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As requested, I have reviewed the deleted content. While it probably did not qualify for any of the narrow speedy-deletion criteria, I decline to undelete it. I concur with Zanimum's core assessment that the deleted content was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If an article on this topic is appropriate, it will be better to start the article from scratch. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not really what I (intended to) request but thanks for your time. The content of the deleted article is what I asked for. I do have a valid email address registered, for [1].

Would an admin please make it available?

Hello, Could somebody please help userfy a copy of the old text that I wrote on 1313 Mockingbird Lane that was deleted ? I am not sure how to work and keep a draft on my user page. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hamilton Styden 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

• Please restore for the current debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 15#Subdivisions to appropriate divisions:
  • 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)
  • Category:Administrative divisions of South Korea and its Talk. As above. --William Allen Simpson 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• On April 3 I moved Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism. Another user moved the page back to its original title and the talk page was "lost." I have been repeatedly harassed since then. Please re-add the original talk to Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Thanks. KI 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Charities with ties to terrorism has never existed and Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism has its history complete. What exactly are you missing? -Splash^talk 23:32, 15 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)

17 April 2006

African aesthetic

Event	Date	Note
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (archive)	5 Jan 06	Closed as "no consensus" by Angr
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)	02:53, 17 Apr	Closed as "no consensus" by Mailer Diablo
Merge discussion on talk page	13:34 to 19:16, 17 Apr	Last pre-redirect version here.
Redirected by Friday	03:01, 18 Apr
Reverted by Deeceevoice	03:04, 18 Apr	Edit summary "Rev. The decision of the administrator was made. No authority to merge."
Redirected by Friday	03:10, 18 Apr
Reverted by Deeceevoice	03:15, 18 Apr
Redirect discussion on talk page	01:54 to 03:16, 18 Apr
Redirected by and protected by Zoe	03:35, 18 Apr
"Deleted" discussion on talk page	03:25 to 04:44, 18 Apr
Merged by Friday	03:59, 18 Apr
Removed in next seventeen edits by Deeceevoice	05:03 to 05:34 18 Apr
(Re?)Created as "African aesthetic" by Deeceevoice	06:19, 18 Apr

Thus bringing us (at last) to the article in question.

• 23:51, 18 April 2006 Zoe deleted "African aesthetic" (recreation of peviously deleted content)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African aesthetic

Deleted by Zoe per link above, restored by FrancisTyers and taken to AfD per link above, Afd closed and page protected as {{tempundelete}} by me, and now we're here. brenneman^{L} 02:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - The article has barely started out. Covers a slightly different subject to previously deleted article and but one no uncited components — contains new sources — if it is original research it is new original research and should be AfD'd accordingly. - FrancisTyers 01:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• It's mostly a recreation of something just afd'd, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy). It's already been undeleted, so I think we're done here at DRV. There's some discussion to do at the talk page, tho. I'd really like more eyeballs on this whole situation for additional feedback. Friday (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, recreation of a previously-AfD'd article whose consensus was to merge and/or delete, but which Deecevoice keeps trying to retain, so when the article was redirected and the redirect protected, she created this article, which has the same problems of verifiability which the previous one did. This is nothing more than an unverified and unverifiable POV fork. Full disclosure: I deleted this once as a recreation, but Francis Tyers undeleted it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - there was no unverified or unverifiable "original research" in the version you deleted. - FrancisTyers 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: per User:zoe. --Hetar 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• What a tangled mess this one has become... I am unable to find a deletion discussion about this page that was concluded as a "delete" decision. The only discussions I've found so far were closed as "no consensus". The "recreated content" criterion only applies to content which has been previously discussed and deleted. Overturn the speedy-deletion unless there is another discussion that we don't know about yet. There are clearly still some serious issues with the article which must be resolved and it may become appropriate to relist the page, but for now this seems like an issue to sort out on the respective Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - There never was a Delete AfD. - FrancisTyers 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY UNDELETE. THIS COMPLETELY BAD-FAITH DELETION WAS PRECIPITOUS AND NOT DISCUSSED AT ALL BEFOREHAND. The article hasn't even had a chance to develop yet, having been up for less than a day. Deletion was precipitous and not even discussed before this action was taken. I notice there was a tag that suggested it be merged with African art -- a bad move. One most understand that the widely accepted elements of an "African aesthetic" are observable throughout many traditional African cultures; not just in art. This African aesthetic mediates not only artistic expression, but how individuals comport themselves, even how they speak, sit and stand. There is an article on Japanese aesthetics. There also should be an article treating the set of aesthetic/cultural values that has been observed in many traditional, indigenous African across tribal groupings, across national boundaries and which underpins so much of the life and art of African peoples. Finally, how on earth can people debate and then vote in any informed fashion the validity of an article without being able to view it and its discussion page? It's bad enough the article hasn't even been developed yet, but many who come across this page will have absolutely no idea what the article intends to treat. The very suggestion that the subject matter be merged with an article on art makes it very clear to me that those who support such a merger have no clue just what the African aesthetic is and how far-reaching its influence is. This very process is absurd on its face, and the precipitous deletion that has brought us all here -- if it isn't illegal in terms of Wikipedia procedures, it certainly should be. The people who support the deletion of this article are also under the mistaken impression that they can and should shoehorn a discussion of the complex phenomenon of African cool (only one aspect of a very complex African aesthetic) as it exists in tradtional African cultures into an article quite clearly and explicitly devoted to pop-culture cool, which features the Fonz as an example of cool. This is ridiculous and an utter trivialization of the traditional African phenomenon (just as the character Fonzie -- engaging as he was -- was a caricature/trivialization of bad-boy biker cool; even he wasn't the real thing). Frankly, such (mis)treatment is an insult to African culture(s) and betrays just how shallow/nonexistent people's knowledge/understanding of traditional African cultures is. And that is all the more reason this article should be restored. And immediately. The talk page of the article presented a list of sources for possible inclusion in the article. The article featured a partial list of constituent elements of the aesthetic. There is no unsourced information in the article; it is all readily and easily verifiable. If there are problems with the article as it develops, then let it be evaluated and scrutinized the way other articles are treated on this website. As it is, the bad-faith deletion of this article is tantamount to censorship born of abysmally uninformed POV/bias.Deeceevoice 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh? The page is there in the history, the talk page is there, there's a link in the introduction here to the last version of that first version of this page. Everything is there to see. - brenneman^{L} 04:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per Deeceevoice. I'm struggling to AGF here. David | Talk 08:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Appears to be a lot of confusion here what is what. First, "no consensus" or even a "keep" does not mean that the article must be kept as it is without any merge. The difference is an editorial one, and while one should be mindful of the discussion on an AFD, the be bold guideline still applies. Second, deletion is not part of a merge, the history should be retained. Third, AFD and DRV are not really the places to decide between redirect/merge/keep as separate article (those discussions are for article talkpages even though AFD often expediates such discussion by recommending merges and redirects). Since there was no AFD debate which had an outright "delete" result here, the deletion was in error, and I will say undelete. Regarding whether this should be kept, merged, or redirected, that discussion is for the talkpages. A big thank you to Aaron for picking up the threads and bringing this here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SSOAR

• Request placed in header
• Special:Undelete/SSOAR (admin only)

The page titled 'SSOAR' was deleted. I believe it should not be because it is neutral, and there is original research because no previous research has been done. I did that page as part of a school research project on animal rights in Tacoma. So I request that this page be undeleted. Thank you. Scorpio398 08:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Brian, <email address removed> / 18 April 2006

• Endorse deletion - it may be the only animal rights group operated in South Puget Sound, but South Puget Sound is not so big as to make its sole animal rights group encyclopaedically notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per JzG, who was exactly on point. Xoloz 17:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per above, and Wikipedia is not a place where original research should be conducted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• A bit cautious, but I will Endorse the deletion. The deletion was a speedy one as an A7 candidate, and with 200 members I would have prod-ed or AFDed it if I had spotted the article myself. But there is no really good assertion of notability here (as JzG pointed out) and media coverage is almost nonexistant, so I think it was within the bounds of A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Angry Aryans

One of most notable White Pride bands in America, still deleted and with very few votes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry Aryans.

• Undelete - per above. Luka Jačov 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I hate the non-notable argument in cases like this... --GTubio 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as original nominator. Back then, they had no Allmusic profile and were not on Amazon. Now, they have no Allmusic profile and are not on Amazon. Are they one of the most notable white pride bands? Says who? And of they are, but still remain unknown by AMG and Amazon, perhaps that just means that white pride music is a subgenre sufficiently trivial that even the most notable fail to rise to the level of WP:NMG. Just zis Guy you know? 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, closed properly, participation was sufficient, no new evidence presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, nothing has changed.  RasputinAXP  c 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Quite a few people listen to them according to http://www.last.fm/music/Angry+Aryans. estavisti 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. About 1000 downloads of free ringtones. I don't think that establishes much at all. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I consider, "This white pride band is encyclopedic" to be a pretty extraordinary claim. Xoloz 17:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. The JPS 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• RelistUndelete lots of news sources seem to think that they are promiment enough to represent the genre, and the genre is notable enough to write articles about. See Telegraph ABC News Featured in that VH1 special on this genre Does Canada count as an international tour? Now Toronto Guardian Unlimited Anti-Defamation League VH1 Special. Two albums on Resistance Records and one on Tri-State Terror (actually, it seems that Racially Motivated Violence was released on both labels). I see no reason why this band needs to be held to a higher standard just because it is distasteful. Is this another rec.music.white-power vote? Kotepho 19:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Kotepho, all of those news sources you linked above mention this band in an off-hand manner in lists of other such bands. And the Canada appearance was not a tour, it was an appearance at a festival in Toronto with five other bands. How does that establish that they represent the genre more than any other such band? I don't see sufficient grounds here to reconsider this deletion. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The newspapers seem to think that they represent the genre well, otherwise they would not have used them as examples. I don't really think that the Canadian concert really represents an international tour, but it is ill defined. I just think that an international tour is ill-defined. A group could play dates in a few European countries easily and qualify while a band that did not cover much of America might not. Kotepho 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • In each case, Angry Aryans are just one of several bands listed as representative of the genre. The claim has been made that they are one of most notable White Pride bands in America. However, so far no one has produced a review or article on this band that does anything more than mention them in a list. I would say that they are nowhere near as notable as Prussian Blue. When Angry Aryans has gotten the kind of coverage that Prussion Blue has, come back. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"...largest neo-Nazi white power record label in America: Resistance Records." Reistance Records is owned by William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance. `...National Alliance, called by the Anti-Defamation League, "the single most dangerous hate group in the country."` "Resistance could sell more than 60,000 CDs this year, and gross more than $1 million by next year." (SOUNDS OF HATE RESISTANCE RECORDS LOCAL NEO-NAZI USES ROCK TO SPEW RACIST DOCTRINE, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), March 5, 2000, CLINT O'CONNOR)

The band has been interviewed by Resistance Magazine (Rights advocates say supremacists' music fuels biases,The Washington Times,August 7, 2000,Author: Brad Knickerbocker), so I'm sure you can cite some things from that aswell.

IMHO, this clearly meets WP:NMG under a handful of categories and I haven't even finished looking through the 31 hits in America's Newspapers for "Angry Aryans". The AFD may be valid, but that doesn't mean it came to the correct result. Kotepho 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per nomination and especially GTubio. 1652186 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete but relist this should go through AfD. JoshuaZ 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It did, back in November. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes I know. My phrasing was poor, I meant it should go through AfD with the new info. JoshuaZ 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I stated my opinion on the notability argument in my response to Kotepho above. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, sufficiently notable. Rhobite 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist with notability information presented. Deserves a fairer shake. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dis-Connection

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dis-Connection

• Deleted with 13D and 11K. Notable web-comic still deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luka Jačov (talk • contribs) .
• Undelete - per above. Luka Jačov 08:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with the closer's decision to close this as a delete. Many of the keepers didn't seem to understand Wikipedia policy. Fetofs ^Hello! 12:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --GTubio 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per nomination on the AfD: article was written almost entirely by the comic's creator, has only been online 2 months, Alexa rank is of the order of 2 million, around 350 Googles, "keep" votes were solicited. Above assertion that this is a "notable" webcomic appears to lack any provable basis in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG, though more explanation by the closing admin would've been good to avoid this.  RasputinAXP  c 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Evidence was presented within debate of attempted "new user vote-stacking." Under that circumstance, admin was empowered by discretion to discount suspicious opinions, of which several "keep votes" without explanation are clear examples. As Rasputin says, a more thorough explanation from closer would have helped here. Xoloz 17:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete ---serbiana - talk 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tuatafa Hori

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuatafa Hori, closed as nom. withdrawn, connected to the Sigave National Association and the nom. withdrawn as a result of a "source" being found. The sole source - for both articles - is a Geocities page. Either both should be deleted as unverifiable or both should be kept (and WP:RS modified accordingly, I guess). Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Myspace is not a reliable source, and the article was a hoax. A Google search for Tuatafa Hori turns up both wiki articles and a cache from Myspace where the name "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave" was used by a 15-year-old myspace user, currently titled Spacey. This is matched by checking the timestamp on the Google cache: "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave. 3/28/2006 8:28 PM hey miss merlie ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ..." on the accompanying myspace entry.  RasputinAXP  c 14:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - as the closing admin for the deletion. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete At the least, this has no reliable source at all; at worst, it's a hoax. I'm depressed was so gullible in this case. Xoloz 17:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - if an editor decides to withdraw a nomination, but there are still delete opinions outstanding, it shouldn't be closed. Likewise, if an editor decides to withdraw, his/her voice is only one of many, and should be considered as just one part of the debate, not as an escape valve. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Unverifiable is unverifiable. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigave National Association

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigave National Association I feel that this article was wrongly deleted, because, not only was the original deletion vote withdrawn, but a source was found for the information, a source which also saved another article from deletion. I would like the deletion vote to be reconsidered. Thank you Laceymichelle 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse the nomination for reconsideration. Examination of the deletion vote will show that a small group of editors had "taken against" both articles from the outset (basing their objection on lack of independent verification). When one of the two articles was clearly verified, their tactic was to press for the deletion of the other (this one), as (apparently) a precursor to redeleting the first, verified, one, as beiong merely an adjunct to a deleted article. This needs to be independently reviewed, and note taken of the simple sheep-votes which will come in in favour of continuted deletion, on behalf of the vested interests. No vote, so as not to unbalance the scales. -- Simon Cursitor 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• What source? The onle source discussed in the AfD was a Geocities site, and the article as deleted cited no sources at all. Just zis Guy you know? 13:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Myspace is not a reliable source, and the article was a hoax. A Google search for Tuatafa Hori turns up both wiki articles and a cache from Myspace where the name "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave" was used by a 15-year-old myspace user, currently titled Spacey. This is matched by checking the timestamp on the Google cache: "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave. 3/28/2006 8:28 PM hey miss merlie ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ..." on the accompanying myspace entry. The article was never verified by a reliable source. WP:NOT for things made up in a Florida school one day.  RasputinAXP  c 14:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted At the least, this has no reliable source at all; at worst, it's a hoax. Xoloz 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I find it unlikely that the book Laceymichelle cited, The changing cultures of Oceanic peoples during the nineteenth century has any verifiable information about a modern-day princess; I find it less likely that Laceymichelle bought this book at a used book sale at her local library when it was originally published in France in 1957 and only 2 academic libraries in the world have a copy.Thatcher131 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted, as per the analysis made above. Even if there were new sources found, unless they pass the reliable source test, they aren't information that would significantly affect the outcome of an AfD. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1313 Mockingbird Lane

The debate below has been copied from my user talk page (see discussion at User talk:Hamilton Styden#1313 Mockingbird Lane -- Rick Block (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)) and seems to have stalled. I read the requirements regarding notability and by those specific guidelines, the article I was submitting,although not entirely completed, contains qualifications for notablility under several sections of the music guidlines although only one is needed for notability.It is my understanding that I am now forever prevented from rewriting this article. I would like to submit this for undeletion. Thank you

Hamilton Styden 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, the artistdirect and allmusic pages are identical, and neither one mentions a single album, apparently they only had two singles and appeared on compilation discs for a record company, Cacophone Records, which doesn't even have a website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for now. My Styden, your understanding is incorrect: while you should not repost the article, you are welcome to work on a draft copy in your userspace, improving it with evidence of the band's notability. You may ask in the "content review" section to have any admin userfy a copy of the old text for you. Xoloz 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The information about the band regarding amount and type of official releases provided by Zoe above is incorrect. The All Music Guide is incomplete. As I clearly have written in my article, the bands discography which contains no less than 7 singles,2 four song ep's and two full length releases on well known indie garage labels (1 full length lp "Have Hearse Will Travel" Sundazed 1990) and (Trikaidekaphobia full length CD Midnight Records 1993) are chronicled in the book "The Knights of Fuzz" By Timothy Gassen ISBN # 1-89855-02-05. This is a valuable guide to the genre of garage rock and contains many of the bands current listed on Wikipedia in that catagory.

On the subject of "notable bands", there currently is a band "Mockingbird Lane" listed on Wikipedia with non notable credentials who clearly don't have a functioning website(although they provided a non functional link) and make dubious non verifyable claims to a connection with Steven King. Additionally, they certainly don't have two full length indie releases and their current link only appears to go to an Ebay store.Although I have been encouraged by others to post deletions on such pages, I am not personally interested in tearing down others, I only wish to create an article under the guidelines as I have read and understood them regarding notability. Hamilton Styden 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A more complete discography is available @ ((http://www.geocities.com/theecaveman/1313mockingbirdlane/1313MOCKINGBIRDLANE.htm))

Hamilton Styden 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fred Moss

This article shouldn't have been deleted, as it was notable (and certainly not speedy delete non-notable!). I was also going to continue adding to it over the next couple of days. 83.146.55.85 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was the third admin to delete it, and in this case, protect it. There is no claim of notability, and sadly, being a murder victim is not inherrantly notable, regardless of modest media coverage. As an aside, the page began to turn into an attack on the subjects, through an unencyclopedic image and a blatantly vandalistic ogg. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's have a proper debate on whether it was notable then, not a speedy delete; also note that Christopher Nudds has been implicated in the murder of a retired colnel: this case got a hell of a lot of publicity in the uk (but bear in mind so did that of Fred Moss, and there's plenty of much less notable murder victims here. 83.146.55.85 18:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. The other two deletions hardly compare to what was deleted the third time! 83.146.55.85 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD, where I will vote for deletion. I don't think anything will be lost by demonstrating the community consensus to delete this article. David | Talk 20:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ooooooh, I've actually met you in real life, you're a decent enough bloke. 83.146.55.85 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that is ever so slightly intimidating - care to give me a clue as to who you are? ;-) David | Talk 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry... although if you think about people interested in traveller's rights that were at catz - there can't be that many of us ;) 83.146.55.85 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This whole mess has been filled with inappropriateness. The image was inappropriate for wikipedia. The spoken word file had an appalling ending. An article about a recent murder and conviction is too much of a liability if POV and immature sound files are uploaded. If we keep ths article, then it should be semi-protected, with additions discussed on the talk page. I would be more than happy to add genuine, verifiable information to the article suggested by an IP. However, we must not allow atrocities like that ogg file. The JPS 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reviewing the text on the various deleted versions, I can find no claim or evidence that this person met the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies either before or because of his death. To me, this looks like a valid use of speedy-deletion criterion A7 even before worrying about the recurring vandalism that this page seemed to attract. I endorse the speedy-deletion but will reconsider that decision if credible evidence can be presented here that this article would have even a slight chance of surviving a regular AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• To me the media coverage seems to be a claim of notability. It might not survive an AFD, but likely deserves a chance. So, I think if an attack-free version exists, it should be undeleted, semi-protected, and AFD'd. If not, maybe ask somebody to work up a version in user space, to show they're serious about making a real article. -Rob 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be willing to do that (as gypsy eyes), but only as a very last resort, I still think the article should go up for AFD, if not fully. 83.146.55.85 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I don't know whether this was a big deal or not in the Cambridge area, but I'd be willing to see its notability thrashed out on the talk page or on AFD. There were some nasty contributions to versions of the article, but Gypsy Eyes seems to be adding actual useful information. FreplySpang (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm prepared to support undelete and list on AfD, but this does appear to have been created specifically to attack Nudds for some unaccountable reason. BBC News shows that the case happened, but not that it is especially notable (I live in England and certainly don't recall hearing of it). The article subject was a traveller engaged in hare coursing, pretty much a classic case of WP:HOLE. Keep dleete dis also valid as I think that would be the outcome of any AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't remember Fred, surely you remember the unexplained murder of colnel on his doorstep around a year and a half ago? Nudds is 'suspected' of 'being involved' in that too... 83.146.55.85 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete this please let it go to articles for deletion if you want Yuckfoo 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: no need to run this through AfD where it will be deleted once again. --Hetar 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan

This article was originally deleted (rightfully) for being a poorly-written and PoV-infested half-stub. Due to the original author's lack of understanding regarding Wikipedia's editing procedure, it was recreated, and the page is now blocked for good. I have (as part of an agreement on another page), helped the author write a significantly better article that I hope to replace the article with. The new article may be found at: User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin/Sinagogue of Satan. Essentially, I am hoping the article to be undeleted such that it can be replaced with a better article. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not overturn AfD, keep deleted. This is indeed well-written and NPOV to a certain extent (it still reproduces some beliefs as fact, e.g. "even though atheism does not have a God, it still is a belief"), but unfortunately it's also bereft of any assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Nice article, but no evidence of notability yet. Do feel free to add any valid evidence to the draft, and return here then. Xoloz 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted with no prejudice against recreating if evidence of notability is given. JoshuaZ 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. -article real seems ok now. Luka Jačov 11:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. We look for references, not notability. --GTubio 13:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete seems OK now. --estavisti 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Jovanvb 14:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We look for references and notability, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This gets 418 Google hits, which is negligible. Who is crearting this new, good article? Is User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin connected in any way with the founder of this so-called religion, one Rev. Michael S. Margolin? The names do appear on the surface to be somewhat similar. Where are the reliable sources from which we can verify the neutrality of this article? Where is it described in secondary sources? There is a reason we require an element of notability, and it is that those people, groups or concepts which are not notable, lack sufficient coverage to allow us to ensure that the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia are followed in respect of those subjects. Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted self-promotion article on a micro-faith written by its inventor, not even an assertion of notability (no members mentioned aside from the Rev who created it), and as for references? the only one given is the group's own website. --Doc ^ask? 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As some questions have arisen, I will strive to answer them. Yes, the User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin is the founder of the religion: one reason that his original was deleted. The current version that is posted in his userspace was based on an entry that he showed me on another site: I modified it to make it far more NPOV and expand a bit upon it. I myself am in no way associated with the Sinagogue of Satan. I will make no claim in its notability (as one reason I relegated it to the lower regions of the Satanism article was its lack of notability compared to the main Satanic groups), but it should be noted that a Satanic organization, due to their somewhat taboo and underground nature, is likely to have significantly less of an Internet presence than most other groups. And yes, I realize that this does not help solve WP:V. If it helps, the book Think You're the Only One? by Seth Brown does devote a spread to the organization, though whether this provides notability or not is certainly questionable. I also feel it should be noted that I am bringing this request on the behalf of User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin and an agreement we made on Satanism, and that if you feel anything towards me to not let it factor in with your judgement. Thanks. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep Deleted - or, if possible, go back in time and keep from being created in the first place. This has no place here: unverifiable, and if so, utterly non-notable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

16 April 2006

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

These three recenlt went through Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 6, however I do not think they can be considered procedurally valid deletes and the categories were tagged for Renaming and not deletion. Tim! 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest people read the text on the template Template:Cfr and give one reason why anyone would be led to believe that the category is likely to be deleted. Tim! 12:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted pending further evidence - A consensus was developed on CfD to delete them. I don't think it matters what the nominator suggested - enough people seemed to think the categories were not worthy of existing in the first place. Why are the categories necessary? If you could present some further evidence as to the wrongfulness of the deletion, it would be helpful. FCYTravis 10:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that people who probably don't care that an awkwardly named category was being renamed to a well named category and wouldn't necessarily bother to have their say at WP:CFD, whereas they could well have been motivate to stop its deletion. The nominator User:Arniep even refers to an earlier attempt to mass delete actor categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Actors_by_series_and_its_sub-categories where the consensus was to overwhelmingly KEEP similar categories. So I respectfully disagree with your comment. Tim! 10:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Two renames, seven deletes. That is consensus to delete, not rename, despite the nominator's suggestion of renaming. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As the closing admin, I have to say that this is (for good or for ill) a unique characteristic of CFD. There are many rename discussions that end up with a delete, and a smaller but not insignificant number that are nominated for deletion that get renamed or merged or listified. --Syrthiss 12:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment - User Tim! blocked and mass reverted Freakofnurture's bot to stop it from depopulating the categories and mass-reverted the bot (notice on ANI) in a (slight) misuse of admin powers. From my comments on that link, this echoes what people said in the CFD discussion - these categories themselves are almost impossible to manage. Where does one draw the line for who gets added: main characters, frequent guests, "Sexy Kitty" from Fur and Loathing in Las Vegas? If one had to repopulate the cat from scratch, without a database dump or any other history to refer to I can *guarantee* that the category wouldn't have the same contents. --Syrthiss 13:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't really the place to discuss the bullshit that occurred after the fact, as I was merely enforcing a consensus that had already been formed by people other than myself and User:Tim!. Having now reviewed the discussion, however, I see no reason to question the validity of Syrthiss' closure. Sometimes we do nominate categories for renaming, and they get deleted, and vice versa, just as we sometimes nominate articles for deletion and they get merged, or redirects for deletion and they get converted into disambiguation pages, or even distinct topics. Sometimes a user files for arbitration against another, and he himself gets banned. Like it or not, most processes on Wikipedia are not binary in the nature of their results. It's very rarely a question of "Do we, or do we not, exercise option A", but rather "Which of all the possible options would be best". It appears that a supermajority of users who deeply cared about the issue of the categories themselves have already opined that these three "CSI people" categories aren't useful under any title, and so be it. Requiring ourselves to start from afresh everytime the prevailing viewpoint conflicts with the original action suggested would be m:instruction creep, and could conceivably result in recursive looping, or in this case, venue-shopping and Wiki-lawyering. We deserve better than that. Endorse closure, redelete as non-useful categories, properly closed with a strong plurality favoring deletion, regardless of the original initiative. I'll leave the re-emptying task to somebody else, thanks. Enjoy the backlog, don't feed the trolls, play nicely with others, don't drag me to this page again, have a nice day. — Apr. 16, '06 [15:04] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Relist. Not clear why this was such a different situation from other similar categories. Guest stars should be removed from the category, but deleting the category is not a good way to accomplish this. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Guest stars were being removed from the category, before the bot performing those actions was blocked by Tim! (who subsequently brought up this DRV). And what exactly is the point of "relisting"? To further waste everyone's time? Consensus was pretty clear at CFD and it's pretty clear here too. Just endorse closure and be done with this. --Cyde Weys 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Consensus doesn't seem clear in that in other similar cases a dramatically different conclusion emerged. The debate does not really make clear why CSI is different from every other show on television. It's possible that the Wikipedia is simply dramatically inconsistent (if that's true then trusting in the community to build an encyclopedia may be stupid). However it's more like that one of these low-participation debates simply was not reflective of the community consensus., so it's worth relisting to get a closer look. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, nothing out of process. --Cyde Weys 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Tim should have really declared an interest here as he is the creator of many of the categories in Category:Actors by series and was also previously informed that deletion resulting from a rename nomination was an acceptable part of process Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_2#Law_.26_Order_categories and so should have known that it was acceptable here also. Personally I am not really sure of the point of these categories as the main actors are listed on the article for the series or film and one actor could potentially end up in a large number of these categories. It has been claimed that there has been agreement in the community to accept categories by series or film, but I am not aware where a discussion took place on this issue. Arniep 00:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The deletion review is to review process. I have much as an interest to keep this category as your interest to delete it. This is about process only. Tim! 11:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your reason for reverting the bot was that it was not a procedurely valid delete, but you were previously informed on the Law and Order category cfd above that a delete consensus resulting from a rename nomination was a valid part of process. Arniep 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now what people say in debates is policy? There is nothing on the Categories for deletion page, Wikipedia:Deletion process or Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Category_deletion to support that view. Tim! 17:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The page above says: "(Decide) Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved"; there were seven votes to delete, two to rename- that is a consensus to delete. Nowhere does it say a deletion may not result from a rename nomination. Arniep 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Straightforward decision, overwhelmingly decided without obvious flaws. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per Cyde. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and recommend that the nominator be taken out behind the woodshed and flogged. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that useful comment, it made wikipedia a better place. Tim! 12:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. Do you prefer a beech switch, or a leather strap? We can do iron chain, too, but that tends to leave marks. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • As long as the beating conforms with process in a mindlessly literal manner I'm sure he'll approve of whatever method we use.--Gmaxwell 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Continuing to discuss "humorously" beating someone, after they've objected, is clearly uncivil. Please refrain. Xoloz 16:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no reason provided to overturn deletion consensus. --Gmaxwell 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I think this category is useful, especially when you are a fan of the shows. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion It is accepted, and not uncommon, for results on CFD to veer from the originally intended result. Nothing improper about the closing. - TexasAndroid 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, TexasAndroid hit the nail on the head. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Relisting would likely produce a delete result. The purpose of listing on CfD is to arrive at the correct decision, be that a delete or a rename. It is normal for the suggeted action to be changed as a result of the discussion. Vegaswikian 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

15 April 2006

Gateware

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateware

Hrm, I'm a bit bothered that this happened so quickly; I just noticed this now. A similar debate took place over a much more sensible period of time on the (now-deleted) discussion page for Gateware, and did not arrive at the same result. It's a bit odd that the debate was rekindled in such a short-notice venue. Some of us don't get to read wikipedia every five days!

The claim about "only a handful of people at most" is incorrect; you just have to know how to use google properly. Searching for nothing more than "gateware" will certainly get you lots of irrelevant stuff. But if you google for fpga gateware (ie get some context around it) you'll find plenty of relevant usages from a multitude of diverse sources. This isn't a conspiracy. --Megacz 03:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was listed on April 7 and closed on April 13th, one day longer than is required by AfD policy. There were zero people on the discussion who suggested it stay open. Valid AfD. Keep deleted. And what "discussion page" are you talking about? Talk:Gateware, which only has one person posting to it? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Your google search turns up 74 unique hits, many of them not about the subject of the article, which is kind of underwhelming. · rodii · 01:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per valid arguments on valid AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I can not find a single point where the process would not have been followed to the letter. JIP | Talk 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted I can only conclude that nominator is unfamiliar with deletion processes. There is no defect in process, and no evidence given to reexamine on the merits. Xoloz 15:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Process was followed and decision was valid.  RasputinAXP  c 14:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

PIGUI

This page was speedy deleted on the basis of copyright violation. This occurred even though the admins were notified via Talk:PIGUI that I own the copyright of the information, am in the process of permanently moving it from a web page to Wikipedia, and want to assign copyright to Wikipedia. For verification of ownership, please email the link on this site which was referenced by the admins; I will respond within 8 hours. I can't see how the owner of copyright information, moving that information permanently to Wikipedia, is in violation of his own copyright. --Webaware 23:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Moving it to Wikipedia" implies that you're thinking of Wikipedia as a place to host information. It's not. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's primary concerns have to be about neutrality, notability and verifiability. I understand there may have been a misunderstanding about copyright status, but even if the article gets recreated, I hope you realize that, first of all, some people may feel it's not notable and even nominate it for deletion, and second, that you won't be able to control the content of the article. That may be fine with you, but sometimes difficulties erupt over such issues, and it may be that this isn't the right place to try to maintain an authoritative FAQ. Just thought I'd put the concern out there just in case. (Not being an admin, I haven't seen the deleted article, only the FAQ page, so I may be misunderstanding what it is you're trying to do.) · rodii · 02:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I understand the FAQ-is-not-Wiki comments, but I'd like to turn the information into something more like regular Wikipedia content - i.e. encyclopedic. I think I made a pretty good go at it, too (but you can't see it now, as it has been deleted). Regarding control of the content, I don't want to retain ownership or control over the information (as might be easily inferred by me not updating the FAQ for nine years). Additionally, PIGUI is a specialisation of platform independent software development - IOW, I'm merely extending some existing information in Wikipedia. Note, however, that PIGUI has a specific set of challenges, separating it from other cross-platform issues. With any luck, the article will be maintained by others who actually have a current interest in PIGUI, and thus more current understanding of the topic than I do (but I still intend to complete and extend and update it as far as my abilities permit). If, however, others determine that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, then I will simply update the FAQ - a poor solution, in my view, but acceptable nonetheless. --Webaware 02:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Cool. Given all that, this seems like a reasonable article to undelete as far as I'm concerned. · rodii · 02:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• The reasons given at the time of article deletion were G4/A8. Since the copyvio allegation is resolved, A8 no longer applies. G4 (reposted content) apparently never applied since this article had not been previously deleted. I have restored the article as a contested-speedy. No opinion on whether it should be listed for regular deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I'll endeavour to complete this article over the weekend. --Webaware 07:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• This seems to be an advert in its current form; and shoudl have all the links removed. I can see it has some potential, but not in current form. Harro5 08:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please clarify. An advert for what? I see three external links, one to a FAQ, one to a list of technical reports and one to a list of free GUI toolkits. I don't see anything that looks remotely like an ad. · rodii · 14:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mindscript

User:Coredev has asked the article to be undeleted, for reasons stated here. I am listing it for him.

• It has had two valid VfD votes (here and here). Keep deleted. - Mike Rosoft 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Nomination (on talk page) does actually provide new information in the form of two news articles; however, I believe these two are from sources of questionable notability. In my view, the evidence is insufficient to warrant reexamination of the recent AfD. Xoloz 15:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years

This article was deleted in October 2005, as there was no interest for solar eclipses on Wikipedia back then. Since last month's eclipse however, there has been an exponential increase in solar eclipse articles. The first one was also being considered for deletion, but was overwhelmingly kept by voters. I don't see why this list is meaningless, especially with a List of solar eclipses seen from China and List of solar eclipses visible from the United Kingdom 1000 AD - 2006 AD featured on the main eclipse page. Nick Mks 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep delete Having had an eclipses is more noticeable and more notable than not having had one. In order to justify this sort of list one would need a reference that showed that it was in fact a noticeably rare event to have missed a total solar eclipse for 1000 years. If you had such a reference, I would reconsider. (also, please don't use "exponentially" if you don't mean it). JoshuaZ 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate It is actually quote notable that there are places which have not seen a solar eclipse for that long. It depends on whether you put special emphasis on events, or on non-events. Kind of like the pessimist/optimist point of views. I dont see why one remarkable set of coincidences should outlay the other coincidences (ie. seeing a solar eclipse vs being out of range of them for 1000 years worth of solar eclipses) Ansell 23:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Exponential keep deleted. It may be unusual, but that's not the same as notable. Give me a use case for this article--why would someone look for it? · rodii · 01:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, changing vote to undelete. I asked for a use case and got one; fair enough. I will note that The exponent that raises 19 to 29 is about 1.145, which is hardly "exponential" at all. :) · rodii · 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Total Solar Eclipse Paths: 1001-2000. This image was merged from 50 separate images from http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/

• Reply to comments: First of all, I do have a reference to show that is it very exceptional to not have a totality in 1000 years. The image 2/3 down the main article is a merge of all totality paths from 1001 to 2000. So only the cities lying in areas that are not blue have not had a total eclipse. You can imagine that there aren't many metropoles among them. Secondly, I did mean exponential when I said so. Before March 29, there were 19 articles. Less than a month later, we have 29. As for the usefulness, one might want to refer to this if he lived in one of the concerned cities. This list also allows to find out which cities never have had totality, San Francisco for example. Nick Mks 09:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete looks like an article that would be interesting for many people. The image above is just brilliant.  Grue  09:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The AfD was rightly closed but the voters voted in the wrong way. David | Talk 12:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per new picture, although I am confused as to the dual copyright listings on the image page (one says its a NASA image, the other says it was uploaded and released by its creator). I'm also confused by why the southern hemisphere shows a lot more area that missed out on eclipses. What's the astronomical explanation for this? JoshuaZ 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn afd's decision, and somewhat reluctantly undelete, preferring instead a new recreation. The debate was closed correctly, given the absence of this picture from the scene at the time. Perhaps this is just a systemic bias geek POV, but it strikes as a rather wikipedic kind of article. Not what you'd expect in those paper encyclopedias, but a good case for the "not paper" citation. That said, I think the old article was rather poor, being unreferenced, admitting it's own unreliability (it's Easter, I'm allowed the link) and being rather insipid in its coverage. A better job all round would need to be done, thus my preference for a new article to be written followed by a history-only undelete. -Splash^talk 16:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Because this is NOT a nonsens item! Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands.
• Keep deleted, completely unencyclopedic and listcrufty. Valid AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as per Stifle. Comments like "The AfD was rightly closed but the voters voted in the wrong way" (and perhaps "looks like an article that would be interesting for many people") reveal a misunderstanding of the rôle of deletion review. There may be a genuine article in here somewhere (though I think that a mention at Solar eclipse would be sufficient), but not as a list of cities that haven't experienced something. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We did not the picture available, nor was there as much interest in the topic at the time of the previous AfD. This is thus a valid review of a new information. JoshuaZ 14:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, Deletion Review is exactly the place where we should spot where voters in an AfD have voted the wrong way. We do it all the time. Or is this a claim that AfD is some form of metaphysical process which, guided by some supernatural force, never makes a mistake? David | Talk 17:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete New information (the chart) obviates the result of the previous AfD, and provides evidence for restoration. No relisting needed, imo, unless someone wishes to do it himself. Xoloz 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The content of the article can be covered in two lines of prose on the main Solar Eclipse page. There is no need for this (and why a thousand years? Why not 2000? or 742?) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Grue. Luka Jačov 09:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete estavisti 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete i'm curious! i want to see this list! Sparsefarce 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This sounds fascinating, and that image is really cool. JDoorjam Talk 19:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - some people may find it interesting, why not keeping it? Milena 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and recreate. New information, new content counters listcruft argument that carried the day at the AfD. Amcfreely 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, as there's a very persuasive new argument that would have affected the outcome of an AfD, but I suggest rewriting it for style. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve Reich (Army)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Reich (Army)

This article was created after Reich died in a plane crash in Afghanistan. It was deleted after an AfD vote, but I'd like to see this reviewed. When tested against WP:BIO, Reich played at the highest levels of amateur sport, received large national media attention in the US (USA Today, ESPN.com, Connecticut Governor) and is notable for the events described on List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan under June 28. I've had a temporary copy of the article here since last July. Does this article warrant inclusion? Harro5 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the deleted article and the evidence presented here, I do not believe that Major Reich meets the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. As a veteran, I mourn his death in Afghanistan but find no evidence that his death is significantly different than the thousands of other casualties in wars throughout history. I can find no evidence that his career was especially noteworthy, though he does appear to have been competent and respected in his profession. Looking at the evidence available about his sport career, I do not agree that it meets the standards for inclusion either. Endorse closure. Wikipedia is not a memorial. (Disclosure: I participated in the first deletion discussion.) Rossami (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - wot Rossami said. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. Quite sad, but I'm sure many Majors have had successful careers outside the military. Nothing in this biography suggests encyclopedic notability. Xoloz 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

14 April 2006

Schism Tracker

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schism Tracker

The article about the only Impulse Tracker based tracker which is nearly every day updated and still under development has been deleted twice.

I am a Schism Tracker user and ocasional tester. I have reported to the authors that this excellent tracker is being banned under wikipedia. It has a very good user and fan base, it is included under Debian distributions, it's totally open source and it has active forums. Also, it's now the only MS Windows Impulse Tracker Clone, so there are not reasons for deleting this entry. Also, it's totally multi-platform (Linux, MAC OSX, Morphos, Windows, BSD) and opened to every people who wants to help the development (now I am trying to port it to Yellowtab Zeta). You say at Deletion Log that "there no evidence of innovation". Have you used it? It has too much features that Impulse Tracker and current developper is adding new and modern features to it. You can't talk about a software if haven't used it.

Watch http://nimh.org/schism or the forums http://rigelseven.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/storlek/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=schism.

Also, this entry on Wikipedia is a real gate to new users, as I knew schism tracker thanks to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is culture, is not censorship. So because of that, this great tracker, must be here. xenon_soft 21:32, 14 April 2006 (GMT +1)

• Endorse original deletion (and hence my own subsequent speedy). <1000 ghits, plus - as xenon_soft says - it is nearly every day updated and still under development, and this entry on Wikipedia is a real gate to new users - WP:NOT an advertising medium. Just zis Guy you know? 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Knowledge is not advertising. It's like you say that Wikipedia is a way of advertisement of AC/DC, Metallica because some people can know this groups here. Having <1000 hits it's not a real or objetive reason for deletion, as simply being open source or being included in Debian distribution a piece of software can be included here. Also, it's very related to IMPULSE TRACKER and yes, it you look CVS web it's constantly under development. This is simply a way of censorship and a limitation of knowledge (it's totally related to more that one entry here) and culture. Finally it follows totally this WIKIPEDIA RULE (as you know it must follow ANY of the rules in WP:SOFTWARE): "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Fedora Core or Debian, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer" xenon_soft 11:20, 15 April 2006 (GMT +1)

• Nope. The difference is, readers have already heard of AC/DC and Metallica. Here, you say the article is a "gate to new users" - which I don't dispute at all. And that is one of the things Wikipedia is not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Switchtrack Alley

The article was speedy deleted before I had the ability to improve upon it and prove it's worthiness. I then reposted it in a fuller form and it was deleted because it was a repost. I now realise that I should have come here first, but now that I filled it out I'd at least like it to go to a vote before it's deletion is final.Nathanfk13 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion As far as I can tell, the band fails notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC; it does not have an Allmusic entry, and it has no titles for sale at Amazon, and the phrase gets 29 Google hits. Note that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote and up-and-coming band. If it goes to WP:AFD, it's almost certain that the consensus will be 'delete.' OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse deletion based on User:Ohnoitsjamie's comments. However, I suggest to User:Nathanfk13 that he creates the Switchtrack article as a subpage on his userpage [2]. If Nathanfk13 feels that this article can be improved into something encylopedia worthy, let's give him the chance to make it on the subpage first, off the mainspace.--Metros232 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like an amateur film made by college kids. Great fun, sure, but hardly encyclopedic. I don't disagree with the common-sense speedy, tho, per WP:SNOW, but I wouldn't object to a restore or recreation. If the author really wants his day at Afd, it's probably better to allow it than not. Friday (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This article fits within the expanded CSD A7. I encourage creator to improve some articles about established bands. David | Talk 16:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I just want to clarify that while there is a band with the name Switchtrack Alley, the entry I created was about the movie by that title. And thanks for the suggestion to make it a section on my user page. I'm new here, so if I do that, how would I go about then attempting to get it its own page? Also, would it be possible for me to get a temporary undelete so that I could copy the content I had in the article to my userpage? I still feel at least mildly entitled to a proper AfD discussion though.Nathanfk13 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to "userfy" (create this article as a sub-page on your user space), click on this link [3]. This will take you directly to the edit page of User:Nathanfk13/Switchback_Alley. If you want to see the article as it was before it was deleted, list it under content review towards the top of this page: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Content_review. Hope this helps. Metros232 17:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment With no IMDB entry, it's extremely unlikely that the article would pass any notability tests. Actually, an IMDB entry doesn't even guarantee Wikipedia inclusion. Userfication of the article would be fine. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion AND Oppose Userfication. Admins with access to deleted-edit logs should check Nathanfk13's track record. He started off creating a run of articles associated with this movie, including Fair Enough Films and Nathan Fisher-Koeln, most of which were speedily deleted, so I can't give you their titles. The ones I named I found because they were added as links to the Beloit College article under "Prominent alumni" (by Nocityawake (talk · contribs) -- maybe their deleted edits should be checked, too). Let him show some signs of contributing to Wikipedia (as opposed to using it as a PR vehicle) before allowing the self-promotional space.

• See also the AFD on his personal article. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I realise that you may not have meant it to sound like this, but you come off as a pretty insensitive ass in that comment. I'm a person who was trying to contribute in the way I thought I could best, by adding something that I know more about than most may. I also don't understand your reasoning for not wanting me to be able to userfy the article; I thought that's what user pages were for. I'd like to know your reasoning on that. Also try to be less of a dick. It makes people not want to listen to you and frankly, I have less respect for what you're doing simply because of the tone you used.Nathanfk13 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Spare me the tears. User pages are, as Wikipedia:User page says, "...to facilitate communication among participants in the project." Or, more specifically:

What can I have on my user page?: Anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you will be doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand whom they're working with.

All your contributions so far (most deleted) have been purely self-promotional, not for helping with the project. Show some signs otherwise and then I'll consider changing my mind. Meanwhile, the yoke of the disapproval of relentless self-promoters rests very lightly on me. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to say two things. First of all, as the Wikipedia:User page states, it is a guideline, not a policy. I understand your point there, but I still don't understand why you're so terribly opposed to people coming to this site to add in whatever way they are most fit. Secondly, I continue to assert that your tone in these comments is terrible asshole-ish, and it's very hard for me to respect not only you but others in your position. I highly advise that you change your tone, not only for the sake of people paying any attention whatsoever to your viewpoint, but for the sake of your peers on this site. It's very hard for me to understand why you felt the need to tell me, essentially, that my presence thus far on this site is unwelcome and then go on to disagree with the suggestions of others for me to help in what little way I may be able to. It may be able to get away easily with being so insensitive because of the anonymity of the internet, but I really think people would be more likely to pay much heed to your comments if you could phrase them in a more helpful way, rather than just coming in and making people feel personally attacked.Nathanfk13 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• One, let me repeat, "the yoke of the disapproval of relentless self-promoters rests very lightly on me." Two, you didn't "add in whatever way [you] are most fit," you promoted yourself and your project -- and are continuing to try to do so. Three, the more someone falls back on wikilawyering instead of arguing the merits of their case, the less seriously I take them. Four, employing a variation on the ad hominem fallacy by calling me evil and proffering "advice" -- as opposed to addressing your own actions -- is also a non-starter. Five, I already told you what you could do -- actually contribute non-self-promotional material -- to change my mind. If you're serious about contributing to Wikipedia, you'll do just that. You want to promote your no-doubt-important-you projects? Go to MySpace.

• So don't try the guilt-tripping, and don't imagine that, at this point, I take your criticism to be anything other than self-serving. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I guess this is my official request for the page to be temporarily undeleted so that I can copy the content into a user page to improve with time. Or if there is another way for the content to get to me without an undelete, that'll do too, I just want the content I wrote in it's second incarnation.Nathanfk13 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT

Here with i demand a clean userboxes directory. I can not take the scroll of "special population group" imagery, including the travel on the internet, and temporary storage on hard disk. I politely ask to group it how 80 PERCENT of the population like it, and put other userboxes in avoidable subdirectory. Some people have no demand/need for negative communications. I believe wikipedia requires to be "neat", and to honour the political situation of 2006. China and little asia countries definetively do not support the user box directory as it is.

I wrote a table, which just takes one node from the main page. There is no need to delete/dstroy my work! I strongly disagree and explicitely protest, and ask for undeletion. I believe it is professional work, and pro-wikipedia. However, it does not prioritize "special population groups", means, to put them in the first class. My directory does not exclude anyone! I believe, user box labelling needs to be in scientific valid terms. I have spent time today to scroll various rules, policies and guides. It is my wish to understand and fulfil them. I wish to express personal embarassment, how some administrators show off bad language.

I am a programmer with solid understanding of programming and modern dance music. I do not want to annoy anyone. CHEERS. alex 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was deleted by user:Nightstallion with the explanation duplicating effort unnecessarily. At first glance, that does not appear to meet the narrow speedy-deletion criteria. On the other hand, your explanation above confuses me completely. Have you tried contacting the deleting admin yet for a better understanding of the action? Rossami (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I got the impression that the proposed new scheme was haphazard, unstructured, and in no way better than the current one. Since the situation with userboxes is strained enough as it currently stands, and since a complete reordering of the userbox structure without any kind of consensus or discussion with the respective WikiProject Userboxes was unlikely to improve on the situation, I thought it better to invoke WP:IAR and WP:BOLD and stop this idea in its birth. Seriously, alex, didn't you even think about generating a discussion on this first? —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion: thanks for the explanation. What about starting the discussion, then? I do not know very much how to "discuss" here, but i do not think my structure was unsuitable. The situation can take improvement, and if i can do anything, let me know. I miss the page, because i do not have other backup it! Have you completely read the directory labels (not the "haphazard" explanation)? What's wrong with it? It is what the majority of people are looking for (IMHO). I find it embarassing to scroll certain icons in the public. National holidays are the official one's (celebration). thanks. alex 08:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rossami: I am not here to agitate for/against special population groups. The icon scroll (in the public) may let others let have this idea, and i do not see it scientific at all. I just ask to put it in sub-folders. It is possbile to include anyone. It is not much demanded? alex 08:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I recommend undeleting the page and placing it in the creator's user space. Let's see what he'll manage with it. - Mike Rosoft 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution; I've userfied to User:Akidd dublin/NEAT. Sorry for being so bold, Alex, but I really thought it for the best, since userboxes are a rather touchy subject currently... Good luck with whatever your planning, but please be certain to discuss your final proposal with the WikiProject first. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for "userfying" it. Now i can try to work it out into something which suits most possible of people. I had no knowledge about "WikiProject" before, but i can discuss anytime (even if i do not know excactly where/how). If any questions plase get back. I believe it requires a tiny gallery of examples WHAT/WHAT NOT for imagery (it requires scientific verification/recognization for image content, i.e. no fancy topics unless labelled as fancy topic -> category fun, colors, lifestyle). alex 09:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Subdivisions by country to Category:Administrative divisions by country

During Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4, one person Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs), usually without name and date, interjected many comments. This confused the closer. An actual count of responders shows a clear consensus by a large margin in favor of this change. The responders include regular category patrollers, political experts, and elected officials.

Conradi also contacted many of the responders on their Talk pages, asking them to change their vote:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luigizanasi&diff=prev&oldid=47665244
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Kernow&diff=prev&oldid=47665514
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayumashu&diff=prev&oldid=47666192
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Minister_of_War&diff=prev&oldid=47666394
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Esprit15d&diff=prev&oldid=47667165
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carlossuarez46&diff=prev&oldid=47668488
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carina22&diff=prev&oldid=47668595
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big_Adamsky&diff=prev&oldid=47669133
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E_Pluribus_Anthony&diff=prev&oldid=47669347
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Earl_Andrew&diff=prev&oldid=47669454
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&diff=next&oldid=47581683 through http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&diff=prev&oldid=47972422
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kestenbaum&diff=prev&oldid=48047116

The closer asked for relisting, but this is unlikely to yield a different result. The same person will make the same objections. How is it ever possible to accurately count in the face of a barrage of comments by uninformed (yet highly opinionated) persons?

Please overturn the closing result by an accurate count.

--William Allen Simpson 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and relist suggestion I appreciate your frustrations, Mr. Simpson, and (at first blush) concur with the renaming. However, the closer was within discretion to say that such a massive renaming is difficult to effect through one CfD, especially without a thorough listing of what is being done. As much as it pains me to say, listing at least a set of the 103 cats. involved would have been a good idea, and I cannot dispute Texas Android's contention that the CfD was unclear, considering its ambitions. The actual "vote count" was 10s/4o -- but that matters little given that the analysis of the closer that opposers were asking for additional clarity, a reasonable request. Xoloz 03:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• In a way he did list a couple of subsets. The two discussions that came immediately after the one in question were, as described by the submitter:

It started as an umbrella submission, and one of the commenters asked for the details to be listed. So, I split it into 3 parts. That provided a detailed roadmap with lots of examples.

These detail debates, however, ended with a very clear lack of consensous (3s/3o and 1s(as is)/4s(alt)/3o). So where the details were broken out, there was no consensous. So at a minimum, the moves detailed in the 2nd and 3rd debate could not happen. But then we are left with the 1st debate, which did have a general consensous for the alternate naming scheme. But we are left with no roadmap at all for exactly which categories need to be moved to which names. Category:Subdivisions by country has 106 subcats. Which are the 103 mentioned? And if the 103 included the ones from the 2nd and 3rd no consensous debates, then some of the 103 could not be moved. So, if I had closed with rename, we would have had a massive mess potentially on our hands, and a split move where some were renamed, and some not. So while the consensous was there on this one, I felt the problems and pitfals in the situation were too large to close with a rename. And add to that a lack of urgency to the renames. Was it really going to cause any harm to take a step back, get a firm road map of changes organized, and resubmit for another seven day debate?

I untagged the items from the 2nd and 3rd debates, but I can be easily reverted to get them retagged. And the bulk of the tagged categories remain tagged. So a large part of the work of setting up a redo debate is still there. The key bit of work remaining is the roadmap, though I suggested to the user that he should also take the renames to the appropriate project as suggested by several of the opposers. In general the opposers were not so much saying "don't do this" as they were saying "slow down and let's talk this through first". It's the submitter's choice whether or not to try to work out the opposer's concerns before a relist, but I suspect it could make things go much more smoothly. - TexasAndroid 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. It had only 103 on the day of original listing. I'll list more. I'm sorry I took the advice of the early commentators, and split the listing. I was just trying to be clear and thorough, as requested. That may have made it more confusing, as the early posters didn't come back and post after the split.
2. The "Project" is Conradi's own personal project, previously started to overturn the result of his defeat at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities). That not only didn't go smoothly, but it took a RfC on Conradi, followed by MedCabal, who then RfC'd the naming convention itself. The resulting convention is now officially part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places).
3. The confusion now explained, I'll repost the entire thing at CfD, with the results of the previous debate, for further consideration. Thank you for your assistance.

--William Allen Simpson 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China

Out of process deletion and renaming to Category:Subdivisons of the Republic of China (misspelled) by Changlc (talk · contribs).

1. The main article for this category is Political divisions of the Republic of China.
2. The series template ({{ROC divisions levels}}) is entitled "This article is part of the series: Political divisions of the Republic of China (Taiwan)".
3. The category title should match.

This was done at the urging of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) (on Talk:Changlc, out of view of the rest of us) during Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4. Conradi was the instigator of many such out-of-process deletions over the past year. It was extremely inappropriate for administrator Changlc to make this change without consensus, and during the debate.

--William Allen Simpson 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and reinstate original Neither side in this discussion should pursue aggressive standardizing until a consensus guideline is achieved. In consideration of the series template name, the earlier title is more appropriate, and should remain until this resolved. Xoloz 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Regarding your last rhetorical question: If "poor behavior" on the part of a subject (agressiveness against Wikipedia) became a factor in the decision to keep or discard marginally notable people, a new systematic bias would be introduced into WP's coverage, and the integrity of the project would be compromised. Intellectual honesty requires dispassionate analysis, and that in turn requires not yielding to excessively emotional requests. Subjects are welcome to present logical arguments why they don't belong, but, "Take me down because I want it down!" is an unacceptable appeal to emotion. Xoloz 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support Doc's concerns. If Brandt is genuinely notable, from a truly disinterested point of view, so be it--and maybe he is, it's a tough call for me. But the undertone of punishment and schadenfreude here, the feeling that he is our corporate enemy and this is part of our struggle with him, is hard to ignore and undermines my sense of good faith. Whether he is or isn't a jerk is irrelevant. We have some huge jerks as editors, and we have a policy of treating them respectfully; Brandt should be afforded the same respect. "No personal attacks" should be a standard of behavior for all editors writing about anyone, not a way of deciding who is a legitimate target of abuse. I'm sure there's irony all over the place, but the argument here should be purely about notability, not "justice". Neutral on closure. · rodii · 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't see a valid argument that Brandt isn't notable at this point. Press coverage of his effort against the CIA and NSA seal it for me. Any activist who publicizes such efforts in mainstream press is notable. I, for one, don't consider Brandt an enemy; though I'm happy to be a Wikipedian, this place is flawed, and I appreciate its critics. I do think Brandt is unwise not to concede his own notability, however. I suppose, Rodii, that we agree -- only Brandt's record is at issue: not his emotional calls to be removed, nor the "grudge" WP might hold against him, if WP were emotional. Xoloz 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Could be. I have a hard time assessing his notability, since it's so bound up in my mind from his relationship with Wikipedia (and ours with him). I trust the community's judgment, I just think we should watch the rhetoric. Thanks for the response. · rodii · 12:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of people that get quoted in newspapers and protested that aren't notable. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't make others wrong. The schaudenfreude is disturbing too. Kotepho 15:54, 14 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)
• Endorse closure. I'm already on Daniel Brandt's hit list so I've no reason not to speak out. David | Talk 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Anybody who nominates it again is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. *Dan T.* 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of 4th only, it seems silly to start an AFD with the intention of having it run its course and then change your mind. I don't really thing the article meets WP:BLP or that he is notable but that is for AFD to decide. Kotepho 15:54, 14 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)

• Child actors do not compete for an Oscar That'll come as a shock to Haley Joel Osment and Anna Paquin. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 13 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)
• Comments I said that I would re-write the article to read more encyclopedic. This is a free encyclopedia. The Young Artist Award was created by the same family that started the Golden Globes for adult actors, they wanted an award for the child actor. I don't want to name any other actors names so that they aren't attacked. It's hard enough for an actor, let alone a child actor. Just Me 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted Has an IMDB profile and credits in some mainstream productions. However, nearly all of them are small unnamed roles (a sample: "kid", "boy", "teenager #1", "teen #1", "fat teenager", and so forth). There is new information here, but in my opinion nothing likely to seriously call the previous result into question. Gratuitous sockpuppet votes on the previous AfD also look quite bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Evan started as a stage actor at a very young age. Moved over to TV and Film and as most child actors, started out in minor roles and there are no socket puppets. Now you guys are just nit picking. Just Me 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One has to wonder why Just Me's entire contribution to Wikipedia has been this article, its AfD and this DRV, and discussions thereof. Sure seems like an astroturfing campaign, to me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment All I would like to do is re-create one article on an award winning child actor. That's it. I am willing to re-create it without vanity, sockpuppets and whatever else you guys said. That's it. I waited until he won a notable award. Gave you guys the website and the proof. Yes, Evan started his career as a small fat child actor. He was cast this way. He has since developed into an award winning child character actor. He may never become big and famous, but he will always be working. Please someone open their hearts and remove the codes so that I may add him to the list of child actors on this site. Just Me 04:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AfD, information presented here is insufficient to overturn the AfD or sustain the article. This has "astroturfing" or "obsession" written all over it. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The same people keep adding more and more accusations. He's a great kid with great accomplishments. I'm not obsessed, I'm pleading. I'm trying to prove my point. Evan was a short fat kid in school. Acting made him feel good. Kids would say "yeah, but are you a SAG actor". Evan then got an agent and they said "sure you do". It wasn't until Evan was on the kids show 'Lizzie McGuire' that the kids all believed him. Evan is a child in 3 actor unions. But that wasn't good enough for this site. Evan wins an award. The award is not an Oscar, it is a junior Golden Globe. A minor award that was designed for minors in the business. Gee this is a tough crowd. Just Me 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Just Me": I want you to think about something for a moment. Maybe you are Evan himself, maybe you're a parent, his agent, his manager, his best friend, whatever. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that whoever you are, you really care about him. Okay. Now, imagine it's sometime in the future... imagine an executive at a major studio, looking for a young actor to star in a major film. He's got a list of possibilities, and decides to check Google and narrow it down a bit. He searches for information on Evan Lee Dahl, then scrolls past the standard IMDB page... then he sees the record of these discussions on Wikipedia. He sees all this obsessive promotion, this argument, this desperation, this "pleading" (as you yourself put it)... and all just to get an article on a website. Disgusted, he scratches Evan off the list and moves on to the next name. The end. This is all totally fictional, and I hope for Evan's sake that it never becomes reality. But honestly, "Just Me"... please, please, please take a moment, just a moment, and ask yourself whether what you're doing is truly right for Evan's reputation and future career. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a free encyclopedia. Evan's career is on a roll. Thank you for thinking about the possibilities, but the industry doesn't work like that. :) Just Me 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Spectator's Comment: Yes it certainly does work like that nowadays.  RasputinAXP  c 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I know a couple of people involved with casting, and believe me, the industry works like that (more or less), especially with relatively unknown actors. You're doing Evan more harm than good, because you're demonstrating that either Evan himself is willing to resort to this kind of astroturfing, or someone who knows Evan is willing to resort to this kind of astroturphing. Either way, Evan carries more baggage than other actors, so they'll strike Evan off the list and move on to the next one. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted -- nn then, nn now. And astroturfing to boot. No reply necessary. Eusebeus 18:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I am not astroturfing and this is not a false campaign. I have been pleading, argueing, fighting, debating and being bold about something that I want. I have been up against the authoritive power of negativity and I just want to re-write an article about an award winning child actor. This is not a trick and the awards are notable. Just Me 22:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Andrew Lenahan and Deathphoenix. Just Me, you're obsessed with Evan Lee Dahl being on Wikipedia. As said, all of your contributions have been on his article, this deletion review, or related pages. Are you Evan Lee Dahl? Are you his parent? Are you his manager? You must be one of the three, otherwise you would not be this obsessed. Just Me, once this debate is over, you're welcome to contribute articles about other things to Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 12:48, 14 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)
• Endorse deletion per WP:CSD A7.

  #Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion).

• (Emphasis mine). It clearly applies to groups. No prejudice, however, towards creation of an article that does assert notability. --Rory096_(block) 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and promptly list on AFD. What would be lost by listing it there and letting everyone peer at the contents, perhaps improve/reference the article, and decide for themselves? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:48, 15 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.
  • And pre-fixing them both with "keep"? I don't believe you. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no need to have a WP:SNOWBALL situation in a relist. Mangojuice 16:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Why do you think, that Wikipedians don't want to act affirmatively towards a discriminated group? Or do you think, that Wikipedians just don't want affirmative action towards Muslims, which would prove my systemic bias claim? Raphael1 19:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• The issue here is not discrimination, it is the fact that this template is completely useless given the existence of the other templates. Please don't play the discrimination card in this argument. It doesn't apply here. Redundancy, however, does. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• I don't actually think so. Maybe I should change the text to: "This article is seriously discriminating a religious group." I don't think "discrimination" can be compared to "not having a neutral point of view". At least I don't see any redundancy with the new text. Raphael1 00:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like to see the new template even on other articles ... maybe ... Scientology or any other religious groups article, if editors feel discriminated. Raphael1 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The template is thoroughly unnecessary, since what is being described is a NPOV dispute; the {{POV}} and {{POV-section}} tags are entirely adequate (and if it is felt that some sort of blurb really must be placed on the tag, there's always {{POV-because}}). The template was by no means "divisive and inflammatory", however, and it is (particularly) unfortunate that it was speedily deleted under T1—indeed, doing that with this template can be said to be inflammatory. —Encephalon 19:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Addendum. Somehow I had glazed over the actual name for the template; it's the one thing about this whole business that really is inflammatory. —Encephalon 12:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Religions don't get to weigh in on article bias. If there's bias, discuss it on talk pages and make bold changes to the article, don't bring religion into the editing process. Nhprman 20:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I find it unfortunate that you take this attitude. When an article refers to Islam, an editor better damn well believe that a critique from a religious point of view on a religion must be considered. Ignoring this fact and writing whatever an editor feels correct is wrong. For example, a debate has been raging on the Islamism article centered around what truly is Islam. Many Western editors seem to ignorantly think Islam is a Sunday religion like Christianity. They totally ignore the concept of deen built into the religion. Then editors proclaim on the talk pages that any Muslim with a political agenda is an Islamist. Hence, putting someone Pervez Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto and Humza Yusuf into the same category as Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Although everyone here proclaims that Wikipedia is not a democracy, the editors on that article see it fit to redefine Islam as necessary to fit their personal distortions of the religion. This goes against WP:NOR and calls into question the factual accuracy of many Islam-related articles since they happen to contradict one another. As a Catholic, it leaves people like me who have formal education in the religious study of Islam very little recourse. This is why this template is here. Due to the inattention of Administrators, I'm coming very close to writing an open letter to Wikipedia declaring it as an unreliable and flawed source for Islamic knowledge. I currently have unofficial support of this measure by many influential faculty members in Universities across the United States and Europe. It is only because I don't want more bad press here that I've refrained from going forward with this. How much longer do we have to wait until editors and administrators of Islam-related articles are brought together for a serious "town hall" meeting about the problems here? 24.7.141.159 06:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. As written, the text was not only divisive and inflammatory, but clearly an unnecessary insult to muslims.DanielDemaret 06:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's more insulting to Muslims to redefine their religion for them and discriminate against their rather peaceful way of life. Read my lengthy response right above this one. 24.7.141.159 06:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since we seem to agree that both are insults, why do you support one insult over the other? Would it not be preferable to word a template in a non-insulting way?DanielDemaret 06:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think rewording templates is going to fix the underlying problem I outlined above. With the current air of anti-Islamism permeating the Western way of life, we are on the crossroads of a new social evil akin to anti-Semitism directed at Muslims. Editors use articles as their own little kingdoms to revert knowledge challenging their basic paradigms formed against Islam due to their fears of not understanding the religion. When anyone, even with a formal degree, challenges these positions then it is open season to run that person out of town. Look, Wikipedia is great for peer-reviewed science related work. However, when we get into social commentary, editors want to write whatever makes them relay their agenda. I can tell you with certainty that except for one editor, not a single person editing the Islamism article has read Islamic scripture and Islamic philosophical interpretation in the original Arabic texts published over the last 1,400 years. Yet, every one of those editors in violating WP:NOR and being given the green light by a few like-minded admins. This template may be insulting to Muslims but attempting to redefine Islam to mislead the public to push an undisclosed agenda is unethical. The victim here is not Muslims but the credibility of Wikipedia and its weak self-policing policies. 24.7.141.159 11:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. NPOV is generic. No need to have mulitple nit-picky templates about whose view is being overly promoted or discriminated against. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JoshuaZ. 1652186 20:18, 18 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 [4] 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. JoshuaZ 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" [5]. 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)
  • Then they went for Rear-toading :) Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do not overturn Altough the article seems to be in total chaos now. It really needs cleaning up.
• Keep. AFD acts against policy all the time. Unless you want meaningful deletion reform that is policy based, live with the decisions. For great justice. 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. DRV is not AfD. Rhobite 03:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure partly because notability has been established, partly on procedural grounds. If DRV is going to include keeps, they should not face the same standard as deletes, given the presumption of good faith in favor of keeping an article. Only if there was some kind of obvious abuse of discretion or the admin clearly missed something like a demonstrated copyright violation should a keep decision be overturned.Cheapestcostavoider 06:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not "censorship" to simply prevent Wikipedia from being used as a shock site / troll site. The evident purpose of "articles" such as this one is to shock and disgust people: "What, you never heard of a Cleveland Steamer? Look it up on Wikipedia." "EWWWW!" In other words, trolling. There is nothing useful or informative here. --FOo 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Doc and others. Notability is only one criteria; verifiability is one of the three core policies. Unless this can be verified using a reliable source (and no, an episode of Family Guy is most emphatically not a reliable source) before this review concludes, it would be a clear violation of one of the three core policies of WP to keep this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Deletion review's purpose is to review the process, not to stand in as a new AfD. If a new AfD is opened, I'll vote to delete, as this is clearly nothing more than a dicdef followed by a section of evidence that the expression exists. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability should not and cannot be overruled by a bunch of people who say I've heard of it so it must have an article even though it has no verifiable sources, also since AFD is not a vote the fact that there were extremely legitimate concerns about one of the basic criteria of article creation that were not adressed it should have been deleted on policy grounds. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, or change the verifiability policy. It doesn't make sense to have policies and that "three pillars" stuff if a bunch of people can say "I've heard of it" and get it kept. Guess what? I've heard of it too. I probably heard of it well before many of you did, and may even have helped to spread it. Check out the post I wrote to alt.sex eleven years ago under the name "Gaius Valerius Catullus," cited on Talk:Cleveland steamer. Unless I've suddenly become a Reliable Source, it needs to go. What I don't know, and what there's no way to find out, is whether everyone who uses the phrase "Cleveland steamer" means the same thing, and that's why we need it to be verifiable. It's a joke (NOT a "meme") and it apparently changes with different tellings. For instance, I've never heard of most of these variations in terminology or methodology. I don't think codifying jokes is something we want to do. We really don't want a separate page for every popular joke in the world. A lot of you seem to think that this is "culturally important," and I suspect that those of you who think that don't get out or away from your TV's and computer monitors much. I thought this was funny when I was 18, but I got over it. Somebody took a giant Cleveland steamer on Wikipedia by writing this article, and we need to follow verifiability policy and delete it or risk losing the very minimal integrity and respectibility that Wikipedia does have. If you want to shock people, tell jokes, or make fun of coprophiliacs, there are venues more suited to those activities than Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 03:44, 19 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)

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

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.

Requests for content review

• If it's at all possible, I'd like to see the deleted content on Switchtrack Alley so that I can userfy it and improve it there before resubmitting it as an article.Nathanfk13 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  This is already under discussion below. Please move your request down there. We try not to fragment discussions. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• The reason I put this here was that a user in that discussion referred me to up here. If there is a more appropriate place for it, I can say it again there, I guess.Nathanfk13 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• 16:09, 3 April 2006 Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", providing the edit summary: (complete slander). Now, obviously, his claim is false; one could argue that it's libel, but it's certainly not slander! But that's just a technicality, and I don't mean to engage in Wikilawyering, other than for comic effect; Zanimum just doesn't know the meaning of the word 'slander'. Seriously, Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", apparently because he felt it was libelous. However, he deleted a large amount of sourced, verifiable content as well, and I also dispute that it was libelous (I would opine that speedy deletion, which seems to be what occured, is appropriate in actual cases of libel.) If someone could restore, and/or make available to me the deleted version (this?), so we can come to some amicable agreement as to what is appropriate for the article, (and slander :) ) that would be appreciated. In addition, opinions as to what in the deleted article might have been considered libelous, given the verifiable sources, would be appreciated as well. There were efforts to balance the article - inclusion of positive and negative statements; admittedly, it could be less disparaging, and I'll work more on that. I would like to work toward restoring sourced claims while respecting NPOV and avoiding libelous statements. Efforts to resolve the issue have failed - Zanimum has been unresponsive to posts to the page and Talk:Upfront_Rewards. Prior to the deletion, I had done research to find further sources to back up other claims I added and would like to add, and was the only editor to make any effort to reconcile views (IIRC). I'm happy to hash this all out on the :talk page prior to edits of the article. Elvey 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As requested, I have reviewed the deleted content. While it probably did not qualify for any of the narrow speedy-deletion criteria, I decline to undelete it. I concur with Zanimum's core assessment that the deleted content was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If an article on this topic is appropriate, it will be better to start the article from scratch. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not really what I (intended to) request but thanks for your time. The content of the deleted article is what I asked for. I do have a valid email address registered, for [49].

Would an admin please make it available?

Hello, Could somebody please help userfy a copy of the old text that I wrote on 1313 Mockingbird Lane that was deleted ? I am not sure how to work and keep a draft on my user page. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hamilton Styden 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

• Please restore for the current debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 15#Subdivisions to appropriate divisions:
  • 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)
  • Category:Administrative divisions of South Korea and its Talk. As above. --William Allen Simpson 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• On April 3 I moved Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism. Another user moved the page back to its original title and the talk page was "lost." I have been repeatedly harassed since then. Please re-add the original talk to Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Thanks. KI 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Charities with ties to terrorism has never existed and Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism has its history complete. What exactly are you missing? -Splash^talk 23:32, 15 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)

17 April 2006

African aesthetic

Event	Date	Note
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (archive)	5 Jan 06	Closed as "no consensus" by Angr
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)	02:53, 17 Apr	Closed as "no consensus" by Mailer Diablo
Merge discussion on talk page	13:34 to 19:16, 17 Apr	Last pre-redirect version here.
Redirected by Friday	03:01, 18 Apr
Reverted by Deeceevoice	03:04, 18 Apr	Edit summary "Rev. The decision of the administrator was made. No authority to merge."
Redirected by Friday	03:10, 18 Apr
Reverted by Deeceevoice	03:15, 18 Apr
Redirect discussion on talk page	01:54 to 03:16, 18 Apr
Redirected by and protected by Zoe	03:35, 18 Apr
"Deleted" discussion on talk page	03:25 to 04:44, 18 Apr
Merged by Friday	03:59, 18 Apr
Removed in next seventeen edits by Deeceevoice	05:03 to 05:34 18 Apr
(Re?)Created as "African aesthetic" by Deeceevoice	06:19, 18 Apr

Thus bringing us (at last) to the article in question.

• 23:51, 18 April 2006 Zoe deleted "African aesthetic" (recreation of peviously deleted content)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African aesthetic

Deleted by Zoe per link above, restored by FrancisTyers and taken to AfD per link above, Afd closed and page protected as {{tempundelete}} by me, and now we're here. brenneman^{L} 02:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - The article has barely started out. Covers a slightly different subject to previously deleted article and but one no uncited components — contains new sources — if it is original research it is new original research and should be AfD'd accordingly. - FrancisTyers 01:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• It's mostly a recreation of something just afd'd, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy). It's already been undeleted, so I think we're done here at DRV. There's some discussion to do at the talk page, tho. I'd really like more eyeballs on this whole situation for additional feedback. Friday (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, recreation of a previously-AfD'd article whose consensus was to merge and/or delete, but which Deecevoice keeps trying to retain, so when the article was redirected and the redirect protected, she created this article, which has the same problems of verifiability which the previous one did. This is nothing more than an unverified and unverifiable POV fork. Full disclosure: I deleted this once as a recreation, but Francis Tyers undeleted it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - there was no unverified or unverifiable "original research" in the version you deleted. - FrancisTyers 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: per User:zoe. --Hetar 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• What a tangled mess this one has become... I am unable to find a deletion discussion about this page that was concluded as a "delete" decision. The only discussions I've found so far were closed as "no consensus". The "recreated content" criterion only applies to content which has been previously discussed and deleted. Overturn the speedy-deletion unless there is another discussion that we don't know about yet. There are clearly still some serious issues with the article which must be resolved and it may become appropriate to relist the page, but for now this seems like an issue to sort out on the respective Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - There never was a Delete AfD. - FrancisTyers 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY UNDELETE. THIS COMPLETELY BAD-FAITH DELETION WAS PRECIPITOUS AND NOT DISCUSSED AT ALL BEFOREHAND. The article hasn't even had a chance to develop yet, having been up for less than a day. Deletion was precipitous and not even discussed before this action was taken. I notice there was a tag that suggested it be merged with African art -- a bad move. One most understand that the widely accepted elements of an "African aesthetic" are observable throughout many traditional African cultures; not just in art. This African aesthetic mediates not only artistic expression, but how individuals comport themselves, even how they speak, sit and stand. There is an article on Japanese aesthetics. There also should be an article treating the set of aesthetic/cultural values that has been observed in many traditional, indigenous African across tribal groupings, across national boundaries and which underpins so much of the life and art of African peoples. Finally, how on earth can people debate and then vote in any informed fashion the validity of an article without being able to view it and its discussion page? It's bad enough the article hasn't even been developed yet, but many who come across this page will have absolutely no idea what the article intends to treat. The very suggestion that the subject matter be merged with an article on art makes it very clear to me that those who support such a merger have no clue just what the African aesthetic is and how far-reaching its influence is. This very process is absurd on its face, and the precipitous deletion that has brought us all here -- if it isn't illegal in terms of Wikipedia procedures, it certainly should be. The people who support the deletion of this article are also under the mistaken impression that they can and should shoehorn a discussion of the complex phenomenon of African cool (only one aspect of a very complex African aesthetic) as it exists in tradtional African cultures into an article quite clearly and explicitly devoted to pop-culture cool, which features the Fonz as an example of cool. This is ridiculous and an utter trivialization of the traditional African phenomenon (just as the character Fonzie -- engaging as he was -- was a caricature/trivialization of bad-boy biker cool; even he wasn't the real thing). Frankly, such (mis)treatment is an insult to African culture(s) and betrays just how shallow/nonexistent people's knowledge/understanding of traditional African cultures is. And that is all the more reason this article should be restored. And immediately. The talk page of the article presented a list of sources for possible inclusion in the article. The article featured a partial list of constituent elements of the aesthetic. There is no unsourced information in the article; it is all readily and easily verifiable. If there are problems with the article as it develops, then let it be evaluated and scrutinized the way other articles are treated on this website. As it is, the bad-faith deletion of this article is tantamount to censorship born of abysmally uninformed POV/bias.Deeceevoice 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh? The page is there in the history, the talk page is there, there's a link in the introduction here to the last version of that first version of this page. Everything is there to see. - brenneman^{L} 04:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete per Deeceevoice. I'm struggling to AGF here. David | Talk 08:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Appears to be a lot of confusion here what is what. First, "no consensus" or even a "keep" does not mean that the article must be kept as it is without any merge. The difference is an editorial one, and while one should be mindful of the discussion on an AFD, the be bold guideline still applies. Second, deletion is not part of a merge, the history should be retained. Third, AFD and DRV are not really the places to decide between redirect/merge/keep as separate article (those discussions are for article talkpages even though AFD often expediates such discussion by recommending merges and redirects). Since there was no AFD debate which had an outright "delete" result here, the deletion was in error, and I will say undelete. Regarding whether this should be kept, merged, or redirected, that discussion is for the talkpages. A big thank you to Aaron for picking up the threads and bringing this here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SSOAR

• Request placed in header
• Special:Undelete/SSOAR (admin only)

The page titled 'SSOAR' was deleted. I believe it should not be because it is neutral, and there is original research because no previous research has been done. I did that page as part of a school research project on animal rights in Tacoma. So I request that this page be undeleted. Thank you. Scorpio398 08:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Brian, <email address removed> / 18 April 2006

• Endorse deletion - it may be the only animal rights group operated in South Puget Sound, but South Puget Sound is not so big as to make its sole animal rights group encyclopaedically notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per JzG, who was exactly on point. Xoloz 17:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per above, and Wikipedia is not a place where original research should be conducted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• A bit cautious, but I will Endorse the deletion. The deletion was a speedy one as an A7 candidate, and with 200 members I would have prod-ed or AFDed it if I had spotted the article myself. But there is no really good assertion of notability here (as JzG pointed out) and media coverage is almost nonexistant, so I think it was within the bounds of A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Angry Aryans

One of most notable White Pride bands in America, still deleted and with very few votes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry Aryans.

• Undelete - per above. Luka Jačov 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete I hate the non-notable argument in cases like this... --GTubio 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as original nominator. Back then, they had no Allmusic profile and were not on Amazon. Now, they have no Allmusic profile and are not on Amazon. Are they one of the most notable white pride bands? Says who? And of they are, but still remain unknown by AMG and Amazon, perhaps that just means that white pride music is a subgenre sufficiently trivial that even the most notable fail to rise to the level of WP:NMG. Just zis Guy you know? 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, closed properly, participation was sufficient, no new evidence presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, nothing has changed.  RasputinAXP  c 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Quite a few people listen to them according to http://www.last.fm/music/Angry+Aryans. estavisti 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. About 1000 downloads of free ringtones. I don't think that establishes much at all. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I consider, "This white pride band is encyclopedic" to be a pretty extraordinary claim. Xoloz 17:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. The JPS 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• RelistUndelete lots of news sources seem to think that they are promiment enough to represent the genre, and the genre is notable enough to write articles about. See Telegraph ABC News Featured in that VH1 special on this genre Does Canada count as an international tour? Now Toronto Guardian Unlimited Anti-Defamation League VH1 Special. Two albums on Resistance Records and one on Tri-State Terror (actually, it seems that Racially Motivated Violence was released on both labels). I see no reason why this band needs to be held to a higher standard just because it is distasteful. Is this another rec.music.white-power vote? Kotepho 19:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Kotepho, all of those news sources you linked above mention this band in an off-hand manner in lists of other such bands. And the Canada appearance was not a tour, it was an appearance at a festival in Toronto with five other bands. How does that establish that they represent the genre more than any other such band? I don't see sufficient grounds here to reconsider this deletion. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The newspapers seem to think that they represent the genre well, otherwise they would not have used them as examples. I don't really think that the Canadian concert really represents an international tour, but it is ill defined. I just think that an international tour is ill-defined. A group could play dates in a few European countries easily and qualify while a band that did not cover much of America might not. Kotepho 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • In each case, Angry Aryans are just one of several bands listed as representative of the genre. The claim has been made that they are one of most notable White Pride bands in America. However, so far no one has produced a review or article on this band that does anything more than mention them in a list. I would say that they are nowhere near as notable as Prussian Blue. When Angry Aryans has gotten the kind of coverage that Prussion Blue has, come back. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"...largest neo-Nazi white power record label in America: Resistance Records." Reistance Records is owned by William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance. `...National Alliance, called by the Anti-Defamation League, "the single most dangerous hate group in the country."` "Resistance could sell more than 60,000 CDs this year, and gross more than $1 million by next year." (SOUNDS OF HATE RESISTANCE RECORDS LOCAL NEO-NAZI USES ROCK TO SPEW RACIST DOCTRINE, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), March 5, 2000, CLINT O'CONNOR)

The band has been interviewed by Resistance Magazine (Rights advocates say supremacists' music fuels biases,The Washington Times,August 7, 2000,Author: Brad Knickerbocker), so I'm sure you can cite some things from that aswell.

IMHO, this clearly meets WP:NMG under a handful of categories and I haven't even finished looking through the 31 hits in America's Newspapers for "Angry Aryans". The AFD may be valid, but that doesn't mean it came to the correct result. Kotepho 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per nomination and especially GTubio. 1652186 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete but relist this should go through AfD. JoshuaZ 21:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It did, back in November. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes I know. My phrasing was poor, I meant it should go through AfD with the new info. JoshuaZ 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I stated my opinion on the notability argument in my response to Kotepho above. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, sufficiently notable. Rhobite 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist with notability information presented. Deserves a fairer shake. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dis-Connection

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dis-Connection

• Deleted with 13D and 11K. Notable web-comic still deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luka Jačov (talk • contribs) .
• Undelete - per above. Luka Jačov 08:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I agree with the closer's decision to close this as a delete. Many of the keepers didn't seem to understand Wikipedia policy. Fetofs ^Hello! 12:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --GTubio 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per nomination on the AfD: article was written almost entirely by the comic's creator, has only been online 2 months, Alexa rank is of the order of 2 million, around 350 Googles, "keep" votes were solicited. Above assertion that this is a "notable" webcomic appears to lack any provable basis in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG, though more explanation by the closing admin would've been good to avoid this.  RasputinAXP  c 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Evidence was presented within debate of attempted "new user vote-stacking." Under that circumstance, admin was empowered by discretion to discount suspicious opinions, of which several "keep votes" without explanation are clear examples. As Rasputin says, a more thorough explanation from closer would have helped here. Xoloz 17:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete ---serbiana - talk 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tuatafa Hori

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuatafa Hori, closed as nom. withdrawn, connected to the Sigave National Association and the nom. withdrawn as a result of a "source" being found. The sole source - for both articles - is a Geocities page. Either both should be deleted as unverifiable or both should be kept (and WP:RS modified accordingly, I guess). Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Myspace is not a reliable source, and the article was a hoax. A Google search for Tuatafa Hori turns up both wiki articles and a cache from Myspace where the name "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave" was used by a 15-year-old myspace user, currently titled Spacey. This is matched by checking the timestamp on the Google cache: "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave. 3/28/2006 8:28 PM hey miss merlie ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ..." on the accompanying myspace entry.  RasputinAXP  c 14:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - as the closing admin for the deletion. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete At the least, this has no reliable source at all; at worst, it's a hoax. I'm depressed was so gullible in this case. Xoloz 17:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - if an editor decides to withdraw a nomination, but there are still delete opinions outstanding, it shouldn't be closed. Likewise, if an editor decides to withdraw, his/her voice is only one of many, and should be considered as just one part of the debate, not as an escape valve. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Unverifiable is unverifiable. --Calton | Talk 04:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigave National Association

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigave National Association I feel that this article was wrongly deleted, because, not only was the original deletion vote withdrawn, but a source was found for the information, a source which also saved another article from deletion. I would like the deletion vote to be reconsidered. Thank you Laceymichelle 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse the nomination for reconsideration. Examination of the deletion vote will show that a small group of editors had "taken against" both articles from the outset (basing their objection on lack of independent verification). When one of the two articles was clearly verified, their tactic was to press for the deletion of the other (this one), as (apparently) a precursor to redeleting the first, verified, one, as beiong merely an adjunct to a deleted article. This needs to be independently reviewed, and note taken of the simple sheep-votes which will come in in favour of continuted deletion, on behalf of the vested interests. No vote, so as not to unbalance the scales. -- Simon Cursitor 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• What source? The onle source discussed in the AfD was a Geocities site, and the article as deleted cited no sources at all. Just zis Guy you know? 13:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Myspace is not a reliable source, and the article was a hoax. A Google search for Tuatafa Hori turns up both wiki articles and a cache from Myspace where the name "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave" was used by a 15-year-old myspace user, currently titled Spacey. This is matched by checking the timestamp on the Google cache: "Tuatafa Hori of Sigave. 3/28/2006 8:28 PM hey miss merlie ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ..." on the accompanying myspace entry. The article was never verified by a reliable source. WP:NOT for things made up in a Florida school one day.  RasputinAXP  c 14:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted At the least, this has no reliable source at all; at worst, it's a hoax. Xoloz 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I find it unlikely that the book Laceymichelle cited, The changing cultures of Oceanic peoples during the nineteenth century has any verifiable information about a modern-day princess; I find it less likely that Laceymichelle bought this book at a used book sale at her local library when it was originally published in France in 1957 and only 2 academic libraries in the world have a copy.Thatcher131 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, keep deleted, as per the analysis made above. Even if there were new sources found, unless they pass the reliable source test, they aren't information that would significantly affect the outcome of an AfD. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1313 Mockingbird Lane

The debate below has been copied from my user talk page (see discussion at User talk:Hamilton Styden#1313 Mockingbird Lane -- Rick Block (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)) and seems to have stalled. I read the requirements regarding notability and by those specific guidelines, the article I was submitting,although not entirely completed, contains qualifications for notablility under several sections of the music guidlines although only one is needed for notability.It is my understanding that I am now forever prevented from rewriting this article. I would like to submit this for undeletion. Thank you

Hamilton Styden 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, the artistdirect and allmusic pages are identical, and neither one mentions a single album, apparently they only had two singles and appeared on compilation discs for a record company, Cacophone Records, which doesn't even have a website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for now. My Styden, your understanding is incorrect: while you should not repost the article, you are welcome to work on a draft copy in your userspace, improving it with evidence of the band's notability. You may ask in the "content review" section to have any admin userfy a copy of the old text for you. Xoloz 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The information about the band regarding amount and type of official releases provided by Zoe above is incorrect. The All Music Guide is incomplete. As I clearly have written in my article, the bands discography which contains no less than 7 singles,2 four song ep's and two full length releases on well known indie garage labels (1 full length lp "Have Hearse Will Travel" Sundazed 1990) and (Trikaidekaphobia full length CD Midnight Records 1993) are chronicled in the book "The Knights of Fuzz" By Timothy Gassen ISBN # 1-89855-02-05. This is a valuable guide to the genre of garage rock and contains many of the bands current listed on Wikipedia in that catagory.

On the subject of "notable bands", there currently is a band "Mockingbird Lane" listed on Wikipedia with non notable credentials who clearly don't have a functioning website(although they provided a non functional link) and make dubious non verifyable claims to a connection with Steven King. Additionally, they certainly don't have two full length indie releases and their current link only appears to go to an Ebay store.Although I have been encouraged by others to post deletions on such pages, I am not personally interested in tearing down others, I only wish to create an article under the guidelines as I have read and understood them regarding notability. Hamilton Styden 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A more complete discography is available @ ((http://www.geocities.com/theecaveman/1313mockingbirdlane/1313MOCKINGBIRDLANE.htm))

Hamilton Styden 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fred Moss

This article shouldn't have been deleted, as it was notable (and certainly not speedy delete non-notable!). I was also going to continue adding to it over the next couple of days. 83.146.55.85 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was the third admin to delete it, and in this case, protect it. There is no claim of notability, and sadly, being a murder victim is not inherrantly notable, regardless of modest media coverage. As an aside, the page began to turn into an attack on the subjects, through an unencyclopedic image and a blatantly vandalistic ogg. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's have a proper debate on whether it was notable then, not a speedy delete; also note that Christopher Nudds has been implicated in the murder of a retired colnel: this case got a hell of a lot of publicity in the uk (but bear in mind so did that of Fred Moss, and there's plenty of much less notable murder victims here. 83.146.55.85 18:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. The other two deletions hardly compare to what was deleted the third time! 83.146.55.85 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD, where I will vote for deletion. I don't think anything will be lost by demonstrating the community consensus to delete this article. David | Talk 20:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ooooooh, I've actually met you in real life, you're a decent enough bloke. 83.146.55.85 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that is ever so slightly intimidating - care to give me a clue as to who you are? ;-) David | Talk 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry... although if you think about people interested in traveller's rights that were at catz - there can't be that many of us ;) 83.146.55.85 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This whole mess has been filled with inappropriateness. The image was inappropriate for wikipedia. The spoken word file had an appalling ending. An article about a recent murder and conviction is too much of a liability if POV and immature sound files are uploaded. If we keep ths article, then it should be semi-protected, with additions discussed on the talk page. I would be more than happy to add genuine, verifiable information to the article suggested by an IP. However, we must not allow atrocities like that ogg file. The JPS 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reviewing the text on the various deleted versions, I can find no claim or evidence that this person met the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies either before or because of his death. To me, this looks like a valid use of speedy-deletion criterion A7 even before worrying about the recurring vandalism that this page seemed to attract. I endorse the speedy-deletion but will reconsider that decision if credible evidence can be presented here that this article would have even a slight chance of surviving a regular AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• To me the media coverage seems to be a claim of notability. It might not survive an AFD, but likely deserves a chance. So, I think if an attack-free version exists, it should be undeleted, semi-protected, and AFD'd. If not, maybe ask somebody to work up a version in user space, to show they're serious about making a real article. -Rob 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be willing to do that (as gypsy eyes), but only as a very last resort, I still think the article should go up for AFD, if not fully. 83.146.55.85 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I don't know whether this was a big deal or not in the Cambridge area, but I'd be willing to see its notability thrashed out on the talk page or on AFD. There were some nasty contributions to versions of the article, but Gypsy Eyes seems to be adding actual useful information. FreplySpang (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm prepared to support undelete and list on AfD, but this does appear to have been created specifically to attack Nudds for some unaccountable reason. BBC News shows that the case happened, but not that it is especially notable (I live in England and certainly don't recall hearing of it). The article subject was a traveller engaged in hare coursing, pretty much a classic case of WP:HOLE. Keep dleete dis also valid as I think that would be the outcome of any AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't remember Fred, surely you remember the unexplained murder of colnel on his doorstep around a year and a half ago? Nudds is 'suspected' of 'being involved' in that too... 83.146.55.85 20:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• undelete this please let it go to articles for deletion if you want Yuckfoo 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: no need to run this through AfD where it will be deleted once again. --Hetar 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan

This article was originally deleted (rightfully) for being a poorly-written and PoV-infested half-stub. Due to the original author's lack of understanding regarding Wikipedia's editing procedure, it was recreated, and the page is now blocked for good. I have (as part of an agreement on another page), helped the author write a significantly better article that I hope to replace the article with. The new article may be found at: User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin/Sinagogue of Satan. Essentially, I am hoping the article to be undeleted such that it can be replaced with a better article. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not overturn AfD, keep deleted. This is indeed well-written and NPOV to a certain extent (it still reproduces some beliefs as fact, e.g. "even though atheism does not have a God, it still is a belief"), but unfortunately it's also bereft of any assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Nice article, but no evidence of notability yet. Do feel free to add any valid evidence to the draft, and return here then. Xoloz 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted with no prejudice against recreating if evidence of notability is given. JoshuaZ 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. David | Talk 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. -article real seems ok now. Luka Jačov 11:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. We look for references, not notability. --GTubio 13:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete seems OK now. --estavisti 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --Jovanvb 14:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. We look for references and notability, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This gets 418 Google hits, which is negligible. Who is crearting this new, good article? Is User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin connected in any way with the founder of this so-called religion, one Rev. Michael S. Margolin? The names do appear on the surface to be somewhat similar. Where are the reliable sources from which we can verify the neutrality of this article? Where is it described in secondary sources? There is a reason we require an element of notability, and it is that those people, groups or concepts which are not notable, lack sufficient coverage to allow us to ensure that the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia are followed in respect of those subjects. Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted self-promotion article on a micro-faith written by its inventor, not even an assertion of notability (no members mentioned aside from the Rev who created it), and as for references? the only one given is the group's own website. --Doc ^ask? 14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As some questions have arisen, I will strive to answer them. Yes, the User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin is the founder of the religion: one reason that his original was deleted. The current version that is posted in his userspace was based on an entry that he showed me on another site: I modified it to make it far more NPOV and expand a bit upon it. I myself am in no way associated with the Sinagogue of Satan. I will make no claim in its notability (as one reason I relegated it to the lower regions of the Satanism article was its lack of notability compared to the main Satanic groups), but it should be noted that a Satanic organization, due to their somewhat taboo and underground nature, is likely to have significantly less of an Internet presence than most other groups. And yes, I realize that this does not help solve WP:V. If it helps, the book Think You're the Only One? by Seth Brown does devote a spread to the organization, though whether this provides notability or not is certainly questionable. I also feel it should be noted that I am bringing this request on the behalf of User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin and an agreement we made on Satanism, and that if you feel anything towards me to not let it factor in with your judgement. Thanks. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep Deleted - or, if possible, go back in time and keep from being created in the first place. This has no place here: unverifiable, and if so, utterly non-notable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

16 April 2006

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

These three recenlt went through Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 6, however I do not think they can be considered procedurally valid deletes and the categories were tagged for Renaming and not deletion. Tim! 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest people read the text on the template Template:Cfr and give one reason why anyone would be led to believe that the category is likely to be deleted. Tim! 12:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted pending further evidence - A consensus was developed on CfD to delete them. I don't think it matters what the nominator suggested - enough people seemed to think the categories were not worthy of existing in the first place. Why are the categories necessary? If you could present some further evidence as to the wrongfulness of the deletion, it would be helpful. FCYTravis 10:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that people who probably don't care that an awkwardly named category was being renamed to a well named category and wouldn't necessarily bother to have their say at WP:CFD, whereas they could well have been motivate to stop its deletion. The nominator User:Arniep even refers to an earlier attempt to mass delete actor categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Actors_by_series_and_its_sub-categories where the consensus was to overwhelmingly KEEP similar categories. So I respectfully disagree with your comment. Tim! 10:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Two renames, seven deletes. That is consensus to delete, not rename, despite the nominator's suggestion of renaming. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As the closing admin, I have to say that this is (for good or for ill) a unique characteristic of CFD. There are many rename discussions that end up with a delete, and a smaller but not insignificant number that are nominated for deletion that get renamed or merged or listified. --Syrthiss 12:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment - User Tim! blocked and mass reverted Freakofnurture's bot to stop it from depopulating the categories and mass-reverted the bot (notice on ANI) in a (slight) misuse of admin powers. From my comments on that link, this echoes what people said in the CFD discussion - these categories themselves are almost impossible to manage. Where does one draw the line for who gets added: main characters, frequent guests, "Sexy Kitty" from Fur and Loathing in Las Vegas? If one had to repopulate the cat from scratch, without a database dump or any other history to refer to I can *guarantee* that the category wouldn't have the same contents. --Syrthiss 13:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't really the place to discuss the bullshit that occurred after the fact, as I was merely enforcing a consensus that had already been formed by people other than myself and User:Tim!. Having now reviewed the discussion, however, I see no reason to question the validity of Syrthiss' closure. Sometimes we do nominate categories for renaming, and they get deleted, and vice versa, just as we sometimes nominate articles for deletion and they get merged, or redirects for deletion and they get converted into disambiguation pages, or even distinct topics. Sometimes a user files for arbitration against another, and he himself gets banned. Like it or not, most processes on Wikipedia are not binary in the nature of their results. It's very rarely a question of "Do we, or do we not, exercise option A", but rather "Which of all the possible options would be best". It appears that a supermajority of users who deeply cared about the issue of the categories themselves have already opined that these three "CSI people" categories aren't useful under any title, and so be it. Requiring ourselves to start from afresh everytime the prevailing viewpoint conflicts with the original action suggested would be m:instruction creep, and could conceivably result in recursive looping, or in this case, venue-shopping and Wiki-lawyering. We deserve better than that. Endorse closure, redelete as non-useful categories, properly closed with a strong plurality favoring deletion, regardless of the original initiative. I'll leave the re-emptying task to somebody else, thanks. Enjoy the backlog, don't feed the trolls, play nicely with others, don't drag me to this page again, have a nice day. — Apr. 16, '06 [15:04] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Relist. Not clear why this was such a different situation from other similar categories. Guest stars should be removed from the category, but deleting the category is not a good way to accomplish this. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Guest stars were being removed from the category, before the bot performing those actions was blocked by Tim! (who subsequently brought up this DRV). And what exactly is the point of "relisting"? To further waste everyone's time? Consensus was pretty clear at CFD and it's pretty clear here too. Just endorse closure and be done with this. --Cyde Weys 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Consensus doesn't seem clear in that in other similar cases a dramatically different conclusion emerged. The debate does not really make clear why CSI is different from every other show on television. It's possible that the Wikipedia is simply dramatically inconsistent (if that's true then trusting in the community to build an encyclopedia may be stupid). However it's more like that one of these low-participation debates simply was not reflective of the community consensus., so it's worth relisting to get a closer look. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, nothing out of process. --Cyde Weys 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Tim should have really declared an interest here as he is the creator of many of the categories in Category:Actors by series and was also previously informed that deletion resulting from a rename nomination was an acceptable part of process Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_2#Law_.26_Order_categories and so should have known that it was acceptable here also. Personally I am not really sure of the point of these categories as the main actors are listed on the article for the series or film and one actor could potentially end up in a large number of these categories. It has been claimed that there has been agreement in the community to accept categories by series or film, but I am not aware where a discussion took place on this issue. Arniep 00:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The deletion review is to review process. I have much as an interest to keep this category as your interest to delete it. This is about process only. Tim! 11:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your reason for reverting the bot was that it was not a procedurely valid delete, but you were previously informed on the Law and Order category cfd above that a delete consensus resulting from a rename nomination was a valid part of process. Arniep 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now what people say in debates is policy? There is nothing on the Categories for deletion page, Wikipedia:Deletion process or Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Category_deletion to support that view. Tim! 17:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The page above says: "(Decide) Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved"; there were seven votes to delete, two to rename- that is a consensus to delete. Nowhere does it say a deletion may not result from a rename nomination. Arniep 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Straightforward decision, overwhelmingly decided without obvious flaws. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per Cyde. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and recommend that the nominator be taken out behind the woodshed and flogged. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that useful comment, it made wikipedia a better place. Tim! 12:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. Do you prefer a beech switch, or a leather strap? We can do iron chain, too, but that tends to leave marks. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • As long as the beating conforms with process in a mindlessly literal manner I'm sure he'll approve of whatever method we use.--Gmaxwell 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Continuing to discuss "humorously" beating someone, after they've objected, is clearly uncivil. Please refrain. Xoloz 16:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no reason provided to overturn deletion consensus. --Gmaxwell 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I think this category is useful, especially when you are a fan of the shows. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion It is accepted, and not uncommon, for results on CFD to veer from the originally intended result. Nothing improper about the closing. - TexasAndroid 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, TexasAndroid hit the nail on the head. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Relisting would likely produce a delete result. The purpose of listing on CfD is to arrive at the correct decision, be that a delete or a rename. It is normal for the suggeted action to be changed as a result of the discussion. Vegaswikian 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

15 April 2006

Gateware

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateware

Hrm, I'm a bit bothered that this happened so quickly; I just noticed this now. A similar debate took place over a much more sensible period of time on the (now-deleted) discussion page for Gateware, and did not arrive at the same result. It's a bit odd that the debate was rekindled in such a short-notice venue. Some of us don't get to read wikipedia every five days!

The claim about "only a handful of people at most" is incorrect; you just have to know how to use google properly. Searching for nothing more than "gateware" will certainly get you lots of irrelevant stuff. But if you google for fpga gateware (ie get some context around it) you'll find plenty of relevant usages from a multitude of diverse sources. This isn't a conspiracy. --Megacz 03:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was listed on April 7 and closed on April 13th, one day longer than is required by AfD policy. There were zero people on the discussion who suggested it stay open. Valid AfD. Keep deleted. And what "discussion page" are you talking about? Talk:Gateware, which only has one person posting to it? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Your google search turns up 74 unique hits, many of them not about the subject of the article, which is kind of underwhelming. · rodii · 01:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per valid arguments on valid AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I can not find a single point where the process would not have been followed to the letter. JIP | Talk 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/keep deleted I can only conclude that nominator is unfamiliar with deletion processes. There is no defect in process, and no evidence given to reexamine on the merits. Xoloz 15:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Process was followed and decision was valid.  RasputinAXP  c 14:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

PIGUI

This page was speedy deleted on the basis of copyright violation. This occurred even though the admins were notified via Talk:PIGUI that I own the copyright of the information, am in the process of permanently moving it from a web page to Wikipedia, and want to assign copyright to Wikipedia. For verification of ownership, please email the link on this site which was referenced by the admins; I will respond within 8 hours. I can't see how the owner of copyright information, moving that information permanently to Wikipedia, is in violation of his own copyright. --Webaware 23:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Moving it to Wikipedia" implies that you're thinking of Wikipedia as a place to host information. It's not. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's primary concerns have to be about neutrality, notability and verifiability. I understand there may have been a misunderstanding about copyright status, but even if the article gets recreated, I hope you realize that, first of all, some people may feel it's not notable and even nominate it for deletion, and second, that you won't be able to control the content of the article. That may be fine with you, but sometimes difficulties erupt over such issues, and it may be that this isn't the right place to try to maintain an authoritative FAQ. Just thought I'd put the concern out there just in case. (Not being an admin, I haven't seen the deleted article, only the FAQ page, so I may be misunderstanding what it is you're trying to do.) · rodii · 02:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I understand the FAQ-is-not-Wiki comments, but I'd like to turn the information into something more like regular Wikipedia content - i.e. encyclopedic. I think I made a pretty good go at it, too (but you can't see it now, as it has been deleted). Regarding control of the content, I don't want to retain ownership or control over the information (as might be easily inferred by me not updating the FAQ for nine years). Additionally, PIGUI is a specialisation of platform independent software development - IOW, I'm merely extending some existing information in Wikipedia. Note, however, that PIGUI has a specific set of challenges, separating it from other cross-platform issues. With any luck, the article will be maintained by others who actually have a current interest in PIGUI, and thus more current understanding of the topic than I do (but I still intend to complete and extend and update it as far as my abilities permit). If, however, others determine that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, then I will simply update the FAQ - a poor solution, in my view, but acceptable nonetheless. --Webaware 02:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Cool. Given all that, this seems like a reasonable article to undelete as far as I'm concerned. · rodii · 02:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• The reasons given at the time of article deletion were G4/A8. Since the copyvio allegation is resolved, A8 no longer applies. G4 (reposted content) apparently never applied since this article had not been previously deleted. I have restored the article as a contested-speedy. No opinion on whether it should be listed for regular deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I'll endeavour to complete this article over the weekend. --Webaware 07:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• This seems to be an advert in its current form; and shoudl have all the links removed. I can see it has some potential, but not in current form. Harro5 08:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please clarify. An advert for what? I see three external links, one to a FAQ, one to a list of technical reports and one to a list of free GUI toolkits. I don't see anything that looks remotely like an ad. · rodii · 14:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mindscript

User:Coredev has asked the article to be undeleted, for reasons stated here. I am listing it for him.

• It has had two valid VfD votes (here and here). Keep deleted. - Mike Rosoft 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Nomination (on talk page) does actually provide new information in the form of two news articles; however, I believe these two are from sources of questionable notability. In my view, the evidence is insufficient to warrant reexamination of the recent AfD. Xoloz 15:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years

This article was deleted in October 2005, as there was no interest for solar eclipses on Wikipedia back then. Since last month's eclipse however, there has been an exponential increase in solar eclipse articles. The first one was also being considered for deletion, but was overwhelmingly kept by voters. I don't see why this list is meaningless, especially with a List of solar eclipses seen from China and List of solar eclipses visible from the United Kingdom 1000 AD - 2006 AD featured on the main eclipse page. Nick Mks 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep delete Having had an eclipses is more noticeable and more notable than not having had one. In order to justify this sort of list one would need a reference that showed that it was in fact a noticeably rare event to have missed a total solar eclipse for 1000 years. If you had such a reference, I would reconsider. (also, please don't use "exponentially" if you don't mean it). JoshuaZ 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate It is actually quote notable that there are places which have not seen a solar eclipse for that long. It depends on whether you put special emphasis on events, or on non-events. Kind of like the pessimist/optimist point of views. I dont see why one remarkable set of coincidences should outlay the other coincidences (ie. seeing a solar eclipse vs being out of range of them for 1000 years worth of solar eclipses) Ansell 23:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Exponential keep deleted. It may be unusual, but that's not the same as notable. Give me a use case for this article--why would someone look for it? · rodii · 01:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, changing vote to undelete. I asked for a use case and got one; fair enough. I will note that The exponent that raises 19 to 29 is about 1.145, which is hardly "exponential" at all. :) · rodii · 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Total Solar Eclipse Paths: 1001-2000. This image was merged from 50 separate images from http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/

• Reply to comments: First of all, I do have a reference to show that is it very exceptional to not have a totality in 1000 years. The image 2/3 down the main article is a merge of all totality paths from 1001 to 2000. So only the cities lying in areas that are not blue have not had a total eclipse. You can imagine that there aren't many metropoles among them. Secondly, I did mean exponential when I said so. Before March 29, there were 19 articles. Less than a month later, we have 29. As for the usefulness, one might want to refer to this if he lived in one of the concerned cities. This list also allows to find out which cities never have had totality, San Francisco for example. Nick Mks 09:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete looks like an article that would be interesting for many people. The image above is just brilliant.  Grue  09:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The AfD was rightly closed but the voters voted in the wrong way. David | Talk 12:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per new picture, although I am confused as to the dual copyright listings on the image page (one says its a NASA image, the other says it was uploaded and released by its creator). I'm also confused by why the southern hemisphere shows a lot more area that missed out on eclipses. What's the astronomical explanation for this? JoshuaZ 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn afd's decision, and somewhat reluctantly undelete, preferring instead a new recreation. The debate was closed correctly, given the absence of this picture from the scene at the time. Perhaps this is just a systemic bias geek POV, but it strikes as a rather wikipedic kind of article. Not what you'd expect in those paper encyclopedias, but a good case for the "not paper" citation. That said, I think the old article was rather poor, being unreferenced, admitting it's own unreliability (it's Easter, I'm allowed the link) and being rather insipid in its coverage. A better job all round would need to be done, thus my preference for a new article to be written followed by a history-only undelete. -Splash^talk 16:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Because this is NOT a nonsens item! Greetings of Nico from Gouda, the Netherlands.
• Keep deleted, completely unencyclopedic and listcrufty. Valid AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, as per Stifle. Comments like "The AfD was rightly closed but the voters voted in the wrong way" (and perhaps "looks like an article that would be interesting for many people") reveal a misunderstanding of the rôle of deletion review. There may be a genuine article in here somewhere (though I think that a mention at Solar eclipse would be sufficient), but not as a list of cities that haven't experienced something. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We did not the picture available, nor was there as much interest in the topic at the time of the previous AfD. This is thus a valid review of a new information. JoshuaZ 14:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, Deletion Review is exactly the place where we should spot where voters in an AfD have voted the wrong way. We do it all the time. Or is this a claim that AfD is some form of metaphysical process which, guided by some supernatural force, never makes a mistake? David | Talk 17:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete New information (the chart) obviates the result of the previous AfD, and provides evidence for restoration. No relisting needed, imo, unless someone wishes to do it himself. Xoloz 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The content of the article can be covered in two lines of prose on the main Solar Eclipse page. There is no need for this (and why a thousand years? Why not 2000? or 742?) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - per Grue. Luka Jačov 09:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete estavisti 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete i'm curious! i want to see this list! Sparsefarce 17:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This sounds fascinating, and that image is really cool. JDoorjam Talk 19:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete --serbiana - talk 23:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - some people may find it interesting, why not keeping it? Milena 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and recreate. New information, new content counters listcruft argument that carried the day at the AfD. Amcfreely 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, as there's a very persuasive new argument that would have affected the outcome of an AfD, but I suggest rewriting it for style. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve Reich (Army)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Reich (Army)

This article was created after Reich died in a plane crash in Afghanistan. It was deleted after an AfD vote, but I'd like to see this reviewed. When tested against WP:BIO, Reich played at the highest levels of amateur sport, received large national media attention in the US (USA Today, ESPN.com, Connecticut Governor) and is notable for the events described on List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan under June 28. I've had a temporary copy of the article here since last July. Does this article warrant inclusion? Harro5 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the deleted article and the evidence presented here, I do not believe that Major Reich meets the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. As a veteran, I mourn his death in Afghanistan but find no evidence that his death is significantly different than the thousands of other casualties in wars throughout history. I can find no evidence that his career was especially noteworthy, though he does appear to have been competent and respected in his profession. Looking at the evidence available about his sport career, I do not agree that it meets the standards for inclusion either. Endorse closure. Wikipedia is not a memorial. (Disclosure: I participated in the first deletion discussion.) Rossami (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - wot Rossami said. Just zis Guy you know? 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami. Quite sad, but I'm sure many Majors have had successful careers outside the military. Nothing in this biography suggests encyclopedic notability. Xoloz 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

14 April 2006

Schism Tracker

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schism Tracker

The article about the only Impulse Tracker based tracker which is nearly every day updated and still under development has been deleted twice.

I am a Schism Tracker user and ocasional tester. I have reported to the authors that this excellent tracker is being banned under wikipedia. It has a very good user and fan base, it is included under Debian distributions, it's totally open source and it has active forums. Also, it's now the only MS Windows Impulse Tracker Clone, so there are not reasons for deleting this entry. Also, it's totally multi-platform (Linux, MAC OSX, Morphos, Windows, BSD) and opened to every people who wants to help the development (now I am trying to port it to Yellowtab Zeta). You say at Deletion Log that "there no evidence of innovation". Have you used it? It has too much features that Impulse Tracker and current developper is adding new and modern features to it. You can't talk about a software if haven't used it.

Watch http://nimh.org/schism or the forums http://rigelseven.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/storlek/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=schism.

Also, this entry on Wikipedia is a real gate to new users, as I knew schism tracker thanks to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is culture, is not censorship. So because of that, this great tracker, must be here. xenon_soft 21:32, 14 April 2006 (GMT +1)

• Endorse original deletion (and hence my own subsequent speedy). <1000 ghits, plus - as xenon_soft says - it is nearly every day updated and still under development, and this entry on Wikipedia is a real gate to new users - WP:NOT an advertising medium. Just zis Guy you know? 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Knowledge is not advertising. It's like you say that Wikipedia is a way of advertisement of AC/DC, Metallica because some people can know this groups here. Having <1000 hits it's not a real or objetive reason for deletion, as simply being open source or being included in Debian distribution a piece of software can be included here. Also, it's very related to IMPULSE TRACKER and yes, it you look CVS web it's constantly under development. This is simply a way of censorship and a limitation of knowledge (it's totally related to more that one entry here) and culture. Finally it follows totally this WIKIPEDIA RULE (as you know it must follow ANY of the rules in WP:SOFTWARE): "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Fedora Core or Debian, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer" xenon_soft 11:20, 15 April 2006 (GMT +1)

• Nope. The difference is, readers have already heard of AC/DC and Metallica. Here, you say the article is a "gate to new users" - which I don't dispute at all. And that is one of the things Wikipedia is not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Switchtrack Alley

The article was speedy deleted before I had the ability to improve upon it and prove it's worthiness. I then reposted it in a fuller form and it was deleted because it was a repost. I now realise that I should have come here first, but now that I filled it out I'd at least like it to go to a vote before it's deletion is final.Nathanfk13 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion As far as I can tell, the band fails notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC; it does not have an Allmusic entry, and it has no titles for sale at Amazon, and the phrase gets 29 Google hits. Note that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote and up-and-coming band. If it goes to WP:AFD, it's almost certain that the consensus will be 'delete.' OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse deletion based on User:Ohnoitsjamie's comments. However, I suggest to User:Nathanfk13 that he creates the Switchtrack article as a subpage on his userpage [50]. If Nathanfk13 feels that this article can be improved into something encylopedia worthy, let's give him the chance to make it on the subpage first, off the mainspace.--Metros232 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like an amateur film made by college kids. Great fun, sure, but hardly encyclopedic. I don't disagree with the common-sense speedy, tho, per WP:SNOW, but I wouldn't object to a restore or recreation. If the author really wants his day at Afd, it's probably better to allow it than not. Friday (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This article fits within the expanded CSD A7. I encourage creator to improve some articles about established bands. David | Talk 16:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I just want to clarify that while there is a band with the name Switchtrack Alley, the entry I created was about the movie by that title. And thanks for the suggestion to make it a section on my user page. I'm new here, so if I do that, how would I go about then attempting to get it its own page? Also, would it be possible for me to get a temporary undelete so that I could copy the content I had in the article to my userpage? I still feel at least mildly entitled to a proper AfD discussion though.Nathanfk13 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to "userfy" (create this article as a sub-page on your user space), click on this link [51]. This will take you directly to the edit page of User:Nathanfk13/Switchback_Alley. If you want to see the article as it was before it was deleted, list it under content review towards the top of this page: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Content_review. Hope this helps. Metros232 17:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment With no IMDB entry, it's extremely unlikely that the article would pass any notability tests. Actually, an IMDB entry doesn't even guarantee Wikipedia inclusion. Userfication of the article would be fine. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion AND Oppose Userfication. Admins with access to deleted-edit logs should check Nathanfk13's track record. He started off creating a run of articles associated with this movie, including Fair Enough Films and Nathan Fisher-Koeln, most of which were speedily deleted, so I can't give you their titles. The ones I named I found because they were added as links to the Beloit College article under "Prominent alumni" (by Nocityawake (talk · contribs) -- maybe their deleted edits should be checked, too). Let him show some signs of contributing to Wikipedia (as opposed to using it as a PR vehicle) before allowing the self-promotional space.

• See also the AFD on his personal article. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• I realise that you may not have meant it to sound like this, but you come off as a pretty insensitive ass in that comment. I'm a person who was trying to contribute in the way I thought I could best, by adding something that I know more about than most may. I also don't understand your reasoning for not wanting me to be able to userfy the article; I thought that's what user pages were for. I'd like to know your reasoning on that. Also try to be less of a dick. It makes people not want to listen to you and frankly, I have less respect for what you're doing simply because of the tone you used.Nathanfk13 21:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Spare me the tears. User pages are, as Wikipedia:User page says, "...to facilitate communication among participants in the project." Or, more specifically:

What can I have on my user page?: Anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you will be doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand whom they're working with.

All your contributions so far (most deleted) have been purely self-promotional, not for helping with the project. Show some signs otherwise and then I'll consider changing my mind. Meanwhile, the yoke of the disapproval of relentless self-promoters rests very lightly on me. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to say two things. First of all, as the Wikipedia:User page states, it is a guideline, not a policy. I understand your point there, but I still don't understand why you're so terribly opposed to people coming to this site to add in whatever way they are most fit. Secondly, I continue to assert that your tone in these comments is terrible asshole-ish, and it's very hard for me to respect not only you but others in your position. I highly advise that you change your tone, not only for the sake of people paying any attention whatsoever to your viewpoint, but for the sake of your peers on this site. It's very hard for me to understand why you felt the need to tell me, essentially, that my presence thus far on this site is unwelcome and then go on to disagree with the suggestions of others for me to help in what little way I may be able to. It may be able to get away easily with being so insensitive because of the anonymity of the internet, but I really think people would be more likely to pay much heed to your comments if you could phrase them in a more helpful way, rather than just coming in and making people feel personally attacked.Nathanfk13 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• One, let me repeat, "the yoke of the disapproval of relentless self-promoters rests very lightly on me." Two, you didn't "add in whatever way [you] are most fit," you promoted yourself and your project -- and are continuing to try to do so. Three, the more someone falls back on wikilawyering instead of arguing the merits of their case, the less seriously I take them. Four, employing a variation on the ad hominem fallacy by calling me evil and proffering "advice" -- as opposed to addressing your own actions -- is also a non-starter. Five, I already told you what you could do -- actually contribute non-self-promotional material -- to change my mind. If you're serious about contributing to Wikipedia, you'll do just that. You want to promote your no-doubt-important-you projects? Go to MySpace.

• So don't try the guilt-tripping, and don't imagine that, at this point, I take your criticism to be anything other than self-serving. --Calton | Talk 06:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I guess this is my official request for the page to be temporarily undeleted so that I can copy the content into a user page to improve with time. Or if there is another way for the content to get to me without an undelete, that'll do too, I just want the content I wrote in it's second incarnation.Nathanfk13 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT

Here with i demand a clean userboxes directory. I can not take the scroll of "special population group" imagery, including the travel on the internet, and temporary storage on hard disk. I politely ask to group it how 80 PERCENT of the population like it, and put other userboxes in avoidable subdirectory. Some people have no demand/need for negative communications. I believe wikipedia requires to be "neat", and to honour the political situation of 2006. China and little asia countries definetively do not support the user box directory as it is.

I wrote a table, which just takes one node from the main page. There is no need to delete/dstroy my work! I strongly disagree and explicitely protest, and ask for undeletion. I believe it is professional work, and pro-wikipedia. However, it does not prioritize "special population groups", means, to put them in the first class. My directory does not exclude anyone! I believe, user box labelling needs to be in scientific valid terms. I have spent time today to scroll various rules, policies and guides. It is my wish to understand and fulfil them. I wish to express personal embarassment, how some administrators show off bad language.

I am a programmer with solid understanding of programming and modern dance music. I do not want to annoy anyone. CHEERS. alex 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was deleted by user:Nightstallion with the explanation duplicating effort unnecessarily. At first glance, that does not appear to meet the narrow speedy-deletion criteria. On the other hand, your explanation above confuses me completely. Have you tried contacting the deleting admin yet for a better understanding of the action? Rossami (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I got the impression that the proposed new scheme was haphazard, unstructured, and in no way better than the current one. Since the situation with userboxes is strained enough as it currently stands, and since a complete reordering of the userbox structure without any kind of consensus or discussion with the respective WikiProject Userboxes was unlikely to improve on the situation, I thought it better to invoke WP:IAR and WP:BOLD and stop this idea in its birth. Seriously, alex, didn't you even think about generating a discussion on this first? —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion: thanks for the explanation. What about starting the discussion, then? I do not know very much how to "discuss" here, but i do not think my structure was unsuitable. The situation can take improvement, and if i can do anything, let me know. I miss the page, because i do not have other backup it! Have you completely read the directory labels (not the "haphazard" explanation)? What's wrong with it? It is what the majority of people are looking for (IMHO). I find it embarassing to scroll certain icons in the public. National holidays are the official one's (celebration). thanks. alex 08:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rossami: I am not here to agitate for/against special population groups. The icon scroll (in the public) may let others let have this idea, and i do not see it scientific at all. I just ask to put it in sub-folders. It is possbile to include anyone. It is not much demanded? alex 08:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I recommend undeleting the page and placing it in the creator's user space. Let's see what he'll manage with it. - Mike Rosoft 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution; I've userfied to User:Akidd dublin/NEAT. Sorry for being so bold, Alex, but I really thought it for the best, since userboxes are a rather touchy subject currently... Good luck with whatever your planning, but please be certain to discuss your final proposal with the WikiProject first. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for "userfying" it. Now i can try to work it out into something which suits most possible of people. I had no knowledge about "WikiProject" before, but i can discuss anytime (even if i do not know excactly where/how). If any questions plase get back. I believe it requires a tiny gallery of examples WHAT/WHAT NOT for imagery (it requires scientific verification/recognization for image content, i.e. no fancy topics unless labelled as fancy topic -> category fun, colors, lifestyle). alex 09:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Subdivisions by country to Category:Administrative divisions by country

During Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4, one person Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs), usually without name and date, interjected many comments. This confused the closer. An actual count of responders shows a clear consensus by a large margin in favor of this change. The responders include regular category patrollers, political experts, and elected officials.

Conradi also contacted many of the responders on their Talk pages, asking them to change their vote:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luigizanasi&diff=prev&oldid=47665244
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Kernow&diff=prev&oldid=47665514
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayumashu&diff=prev&oldid=47666192
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Minister_of_War&diff=prev&oldid=47666394
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Esprit15d&diff=prev&oldid=47667165
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carlossuarez46&diff=prev&oldid=47668488
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carina22&diff=prev&oldid=47668595
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big_Adamsky&diff=prev&oldid=47669133
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E_Pluribus_Anthony&diff=prev&oldid=47669347
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Earl_Andrew&diff=prev&oldid=47669454
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&diff=next&oldid=47581683 through http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&diff=prev&oldid=47972422
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kestenbaum&diff=prev&oldid=48047116

The closer asked for relisting, but this is unlikely to yield a different result. The same person will make the same objections. How is it ever possible to accurately count in the face of a barrage of comments by uninformed (yet highly opinionated) persons?

Please overturn the closing result by an accurate count.

--William Allen Simpson 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and relist suggestion I appreciate your frustrations, Mr. Simpson, and (at first blush) concur with the renaming. However, the closer was within discretion to say that such a massive renaming is difficult to effect through one CfD, especially without a thorough listing of what is being done. As much as it pains me to say, listing at least a set of the 103 cats. involved would have been a good idea, and I cannot dispute Texas Android's contention that the CfD was unclear, considering its ambitions. The actual "vote count" was 10s/4o -- but that matters little given that the analysis of the closer that opposers were asking for additional clarity, a reasonable request. Xoloz 03:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• In a way he did list a couple of subsets. The two discussions that came immediately after the one in question were, as described by the submitter:

It started as an umbrella submission, and one of the commenters asked for the details to be listed. So, I split it into 3 parts. That provided a detailed roadmap with lots of examples.

These detail debates, however, ended with a very clear lack of consensous (3s/3o and 1s(as is)/4s(alt)/3o). So where the details were broken out, there was no consensous. So at a minimum, the moves detailed in the 2nd and 3rd debate could not happen. But then we are left with the 1st debate, which did have a general consensous for the alternate naming scheme. But we are left with no roadmap at all for exactly which categories need to be moved to which names. Category:Subdivisions by country has 106 subcats. Which are the 103 mentioned? And if the 103 included the ones from the 2nd and 3rd no consensous debates, then some of the 103 could not be moved. So, if I had closed with rename, we would have had a massive mess potentially on our hands, and a split move where some were renamed, and some not. So while the consensous was there on this one, I felt the problems and pitfals in the situation were too large to close with a rename. And add to that a lack of urgency to the renames. Was it really going to cause any harm to take a step back, get a firm road map of changes organized, and resubmit for another seven day debate?

I untagged the items from the 2nd and 3rd debates, but I can be easily reverted to get them retagged. And the bulk of the tagged categories remain tagged. So a large part of the work of setting up a redo debate is still there. The key bit of work remaining is the roadmap, though I suggested to the user that he should also take the renames to the appropriate project as suggested by several of the opposers. In general the opposers were not so much saying "don't do this" as they were saying "slow down and let's talk this through first". It's the submitter's choice whether or not to try to work out the opposer's concerns before a relist, but I suspect it could make things go much more smoothly. - TexasAndroid 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. It had only 103 on the day of original listing. I'll list more. I'm sorry I took the advice of the early commentators, and split the listing. I was just trying to be clear and thorough, as requested. That may have made it more confusing, as the early posters didn't come back and post after the split.
2. The "Project" is Conradi's own personal project, previously started to overturn the result of his defeat at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities). That not only didn't go smoothly, but it took a RfC on Conradi, followed by MedCabal, who then RfC'd the naming convention itself. The resulting convention is now officially part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places).
3. The confusion now explained, I'll repost the entire thing at CfD, with the results of the previous debate, for further consideration. Thank you for your assistance.

--William Allen Simpson 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China

Out of process deletion and renaming to Category:Subdivisons of the Republic of China (misspelled) by Changlc (talk · contribs).

1. The main article for this category is Political divisions of the Republic of China.
2. The series template ({{ROC divisions levels}}) is entitled "This article is part of the series: Political divisions of the Republic of China (Taiwan)".
3. The category title should match.

This was done at the urging of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) (on Talk:Changlc, out of view of the rest of us) during Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4. Conradi was the instigator of many such out-of-process deletions over the past year. It was extremely inappropriate for administrator Changlc to make this change without consensus, and during the debate.

--William Allen Simpson 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and reinstate original Neither side in this discussion should pursue aggressive standardizing until a consensus guideline is achieved. In consideration of the series template name, the earlier title is more appropriate, and should remain until this resolved. Xoloz 03:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Regarding your last rhetorical question: If "poor behavior" on the part of a subject (agressiveness against Wikipedia) became a factor in the decision to keep or discard marginally notable people, a new systematic bias would be introduced into WP's coverage, and the integrity of the project would be compromised. Intellectual honesty requires dispassionate analysis, and that in turn requires not yielding to excessively emotional requests. Subjects are welcome to present logical arguments why they don't belong, but, "Take me down because I want it down!" is an unacceptable appeal to emotion. Xoloz 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support Doc's concerns. If Brandt is genuinely notable, from a truly disinterested point of view, so be it--and maybe he is, it's a tough call for me. But the undertone of punishment and schadenfreude here, the feeling that he is our corporate enemy and this is part of our struggle with him, is hard to ignore and undermines my sense of good faith. Whether he is or isn't a jerk is irrelevant. We have some huge jerks as editors, and we have a policy of treating them respectfully; Brandt should be afforded the same respect. "No personal attacks" should be a standard of behavior for all editors writing about anyone, not a way of deciding who is a legitimate target of abuse. I'm sure there's irony all over the place, but the argument here should be purely about notability, not "justice". Neutral on closure. · rodii · 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't see a valid argument that Brandt isn't notable at this point. Press coverage of his effort against the CIA and NSA seal it for me. Any activist who publicizes such efforts in mainstream press is notable. I, for one, don't consider Brandt an enemy; though I'm happy to be a Wikipedian, this place is flawed, and I appreciate its critics. I do think Brandt is unwise not to concede his own notability, however. I suppose, Rodii, that we agree -- only Brandt's record is at issue: not his emotional calls to be removed, nor the "grudge" WP might hold against him, if WP were emotional. Xoloz 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Could be. I have a hard time assessing his notability, since it's so bound up in my mind from his relationship with Wikipedia (and ours with him). I trust the community's judgment, I just think we should watch the rhetoric. Thanks for the response. · rodii · 12:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of people that get quoted in newspapers and protested that aren't notable. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't make others wrong. The schaudenfreude is disturbing too. Kotepho 15:54, 14 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)
• Endorse closure. I'm already on Daniel Brandt's hit list so I've no reason not to speak out. David | Talk 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Anybody who nominates it again is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. *Dan T.* 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of 4th only, it seems silly to start an AFD with the intention of having it run its course and then change your mind. I don't really thing the article meets WP:BLP or that he is notable but that is for AFD to decide. Kotepho 15:54, 14 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)

• Child actors do not compete for an Oscar That'll come as a shock to Haley Joel Osment and Anna Paquin. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 13 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)
• Comments I said that I would re-write the article to read more encyclopedic. This is a free encyclopedia. The Young Artist Award was created by the same family that started the Golden Globes for adult actors, they wanted an award for the child actor. I don't want to name any other actors names so that they aren't attacked. It's hard enough for an actor, let alone a child actor. Just Me 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted Has an IMDB profile and credits in some mainstream productions. However, nearly all of them are small unnamed roles (a sample: "kid", "boy", "teenager #1", "teen #1", "fat teenager", and so forth). There is new information here, but in my opinion nothing likely to seriously call the previous result into question. Gratuitous sockpuppet votes on the previous AfD also look quite bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Evan started as a stage actor at a very young age. Moved over to TV and Film and as most child actors, started out in minor roles and there are no socket puppets. Now you guys are just nit picking. Just Me 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One has to wonder why Just Me's entire contribution to Wikipedia has been this article, its AfD and this DRV, and discussions thereof. Sure seems like an astroturfing campaign, to me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment All I would like to do is re-create one article on an award winning child actor. That's it. I am willing to re-create it without vanity, sockpuppets and whatever else you guys said. That's it. I waited until he won a notable award. Gave you guys the website and the proof. Yes, Evan started his career as a small fat child actor. He was cast this way. He has since developed into an award winning child character actor. He may never become big and famous, but he will always be working. Please someone open their hearts and remove the codes so that I may add him to the list of child actors on this site. Just Me 04:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AfD, information presented here is insufficient to overturn the AfD or sustain the article. This has "astroturfing" or "obsession" written all over it. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The same people keep adding more and more accusations. He's a great kid with great accomplishments. I'm not obsessed, I'm pleading. I'm trying to prove my point. Evan was a short fat kid in school. Acting made him feel good. Kids would say "yeah, but are you a SAG actor". Evan then got an agent and they said "sure you do". It wasn't until Evan was on the kids show 'Lizzie McGuire' that the kids all believed him. Evan is a child in 3 actor unions. But that wasn't good enough for this site. Evan wins an award. The award is not an Oscar, it is a junior Golden Globe. A minor award that was designed for minors in the business. Gee this is a tough crowd. Just Me 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Just Me": I want you to think about something for a moment. Maybe you are Evan himself, maybe you're a parent, his agent, his manager, his best friend, whatever. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that whoever you are, you really care about him. Okay. Now, imagine it's sometime in the future... imagine an executive at a major studio, looking for a young actor to star in a major film. He's got a list of possibilities, and decides to check Google and narrow it down a bit. He searches for information on Evan Lee Dahl, then scrolls past the standard IMDB page... then he sees the record of these discussions on Wikipedia. He sees all this obsessive promotion, this argument, this desperation, this "pleading" (as you yourself put it)... and all just to get an article on a website. Disgusted, he scratches Evan off the list and moves on to the next name. The end. This is all totally fictional, and I hope for Evan's sake that it never becomes reality. But honestly, "Just Me"... please, please, please take a moment, just a moment, and ask yourself whether what you're doing is truly right for Evan's reputation and future career. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a free encyclopedia. Evan's career is on a roll. Thank you for thinking about the possibilities, but the industry doesn't work like that. :) Just Me 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Spectator's Comment: Yes it certainly does work like that nowadays.  RasputinAXP  c 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I know a couple of people involved with casting, and believe me, the industry works like that (more or less), especially with relatively unknown actors. You're doing Evan more harm than good, because you're demonstrating that either Evan himself is willing to resort to this kind of astroturfing, or someone who knows Evan is willing to resort to this kind of astroturphing. Either way, Evan carries more baggage than other actors, so they'll strike Evan off the list and move on to the next one. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted -- nn then, nn now. And astroturfing to boot. No reply necessary. Eusebeus 18:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I am not astroturfing and this is not a false campaign. I have been pleading, argueing, fighting, debating and being bold about something that I want. I have been up against the authoritive power of negativity and I just want to re-write an article about an award winning child actor. This is not a trick and the awards are notable. Just Me 22:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Andrew Lenahan and Deathphoenix. Just Me, you're obsessed with Evan Lee Dahl being on Wikipedia. As said, all of your contributions have been on his article, this deletion review, or related pages. Are you Evan Lee Dahl? Are you his parent? Are you his manager? You must be one of the three, otherwise you would not be this obsessed. Just Me, once this debate is over, you're welcome to contribute articles about other things to Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 12:48, 14 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)
• Endorse deletion per WP:CSD A7.

  #Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for further guidance on this criterion).

• (Emphasis mine). It clearly applies to groups. No prejudice, however, towards creation of an article that does assert notability. --Rory096_(block) 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, and promptly list on AFD. What would be lost by listing it there and letting everyone peer at the contents, perhaps improve/reference the article, and decide for themselves? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:48, 15 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.
  • And pre-fixing them both with "keep"? I don't believe you. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no need to have a WP:SNOWBALL situation in a relist. Mangojuice 16:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Why do you think, that Wikipedians don't want to act affirmatively towards a discriminated group? Or do you think, that Wikipedians just don't want affirmative action towards Muslims, which would prove my systemic bias claim? Raphael1 19:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• The issue here is not discrimination, it is the fact that this template is completely useless given the existence of the other templates. Please don't play the discrimination card in this argument. It doesn't apply here. Redundancy, however, does. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• I don't actually think so. Maybe I should change the text to: "This article is seriously discriminating a religious group." I don't think "discrimination" can be compared to "not having a neutral point of view". At least I don't see any redundancy with the new text. Raphael1 00:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like to see the new template even on other articles ... maybe ... Scientology or any other religious groups article, if editors feel discriminated. Raphael1 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The template is thoroughly unnecessary, since what is being described is a NPOV dispute; the {{POV}} and {{POV-section}} tags are entirely adequate (and if it is felt that some sort of blurb really must be placed on the tag, there's always {{POV-because}}). The template was by no means "divisive and inflammatory", however, and it is (particularly) unfortunate that it was speedily deleted under T1—indeed, doing that with this template can be said to be inflammatory. —Encephalon 19:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Addendum. Somehow I had glazed over the actual name for the template; it's the one thing about this whole business that really is inflammatory. —Encephalon 12:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Religions don't get to weigh in on article bias. If there's bias, discuss it on talk pages and make bold changes to the article, don't bring religion into the editing process. Nhprman 20:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I find it unfortunate that you take this attitude. When an article refers to Islam, an editor better damn well believe that a critique from a religious point of view on a religion must be considered. Ignoring this fact and writing whatever an editor feels correct is wrong. For example, a debate has been raging on the Islamism article centered around what truly is Islam. Many Western editors seem to ignorantly think Islam is a Sunday religion like Christianity. They totally ignore the concept of deen built into the religion. Then editors proclaim on the talk pages that any Muslim with a political agenda is an Islamist. Hence, putting someone Pervez Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto and Humza Yusuf into the same category as Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Although everyone here proclaims that Wikipedia is not a democracy, the editors on that article see it fit to redefine Islam as necessary to fit their personal distortions of the religion. This goes against WP:NOR and calls into question the factual accuracy of many Islam-related articles since they happen to contradict one another. As a Catholic, it leaves people like me who have formal education in the religious study of Islam very little recourse. This is why this template is here. Due to the inattention of Administrators, I'm coming very close to writing an open letter to Wikipedia declaring it as an unreliable and flawed source for Islamic knowledge. I currently have unofficial support of this measure by many influential faculty members in Universities across the United States and Europe. It is only because I don't want more bad press here that I've refrained from going forward with this. How much longer do we have to wait until editors and administrators of Islam-related articles are brought together for a serious "town hall" meeting about the problems here? 24.7.141.159 06:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. As written, the text was not only divisive and inflammatory, but clearly an unnecessary insult to muslims.DanielDemaret 06:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's more insulting to Muslims to redefine their religion for them and discriminate against their rather peaceful way of life. Read my lengthy response right above this one. 24.7.141.159 06:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since we seem to agree that both are insults, why do you support one insult over the other? Would it not be preferable to word a template in a non-insulting way?DanielDemaret 06:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think rewording templates is going to fix the underlying problem I outlined above. With the current air of anti-Islamism permeating the Western way of life, we are on the crossroads of a new social evil akin to anti-Semitism directed at Muslims. Editors use articles as their own little kingdoms to revert knowledge challenging their basic paradigms formed against Islam due to their fears of not understanding the religion. When anyone, even with a formal degree, challenges these positions then it is open season to run that person out of town. Look, Wikipedia is great for peer-reviewed science related work. However, when we get into social commentary, editors want to write whatever makes them relay their agenda. I can tell you with certainty that except for one editor, not a single person editing the Islamism article has read Islamic scripture and Islamic philosophical interpretation in the original Arabic texts published over the last 1,400 years. Yet, every one of those editors in violating WP:NOR and being given the green light by a few like-minded admins. This template may be insulting to Muslims but attempting to redefine Islam to mislead the public to push an undisclosed agenda is unethical. The victim here is not Muslims but the credibility of Wikipedia and its weak self-policing policies. 24.7.141.159 11:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. NPOV is generic. No need to have mulitple nit-picky templates about whose view is being overly promoted or discriminated against. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JoshuaZ. 1652186 20:18, 18 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 [52] 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. JoshuaZ 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" [53]. 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)
  • Then they went for Rear-toading :) Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do not overturn Altough the article seems to be in total chaos now. It really needs cleaning up.
• Keep. AFD acts against policy all the time. Unless you want meaningful deletion reform that is policy based, live with the decisions. For great justice. 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. DRV is not AfD. Rhobite 03:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure partly because notability has been established, partly on procedural grounds. If DRV is going to include keeps, they should not face the same standard as deletes, given the presumption of good faith in favor of keeping an article. Only if there was some kind of obvious abuse of discretion or the admin clearly missed something like a demonstrated copyright violation should a keep decision be overturned.Cheapestcostavoider 06:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not "censorship" to simply prevent Wikipedia from being used as a shock site / troll site. The evident purpose of "articles" such as this one is to shock and disgust people: "What, you never heard of a Cleveland Steamer? Look it up on Wikipedia." "EWWWW!" In other words, trolling. There is nothing useful or informative here. --FOo 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Doc and others. Notability is only one criteria; verifiability is one of the three core policies. Unless this can be verified using a reliable source (and no, an episode of Family Guy is most emphatically not a reliable source) before this review concludes, it would be a clear violation of one of the three core policies of WP to keep this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Deletion review's purpose is to review the process, not to stand in as a new AfD. If a new AfD is opened, I'll vote to delete, as this is clearly nothing more than a dicdef followed by a section of evidence that the expression exists. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability should not and cannot be overruled by a bunch of people who say I've heard of it so it must have an article even though it has no verifiable sources, also since AFD is not a vote the fact that there were extremely legitimate concerns about one of the basic criteria of article creation that were not adressed it should have been deleted on policy grounds. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, or change the verifiability policy. It doesn't make sense to have policies and that "three pillars" stuff if a bunch of people can say "I've heard of it" and get it kept. Guess what? I've heard of it too. I probably heard of it well before many of you did, and may even have helped to spread it. Check out the post I wrote to alt.sex eleven years ago under the name "Gaius Valerius Catullus," cited on Talk:Cleveland steamer. Unless I've suddenly become a Reliable Source, it needs to go. What I don't know, and what there's no way to find out, is whether everyone who uses the phrase "Cleveland steamer" means the same thing, and that's why we need it to be verifiable. It's a joke (NOT a "meme") and it apparently changes with different tellings. For instance, I've never heard of most of these variations in terminology or methodology. I don't think codifying jokes is something we want to do. We really don't want a separate page for every popular joke in the world. A lot of you seem to think that this is "culturally important," and I suspect that those of you who think that don't get out or away from your TV's and computer monitors much. I thought this was funny when I was 18, but I got over it. Somebody took a giant Cleveland steamer on Wikipedia by writing this article, and we need to follow verifiability policy and delete it or risk losing the very minimal integrity and respectibility that Wikipedia does have. If you want to shock people, tell jokes, or make fun of coprophiliacs, there are venues more suited to those activities than Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 03:44, 19 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)

• Endorse deletion, either for copyvio or for self-promotion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:45, 17 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 [54] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[55] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [56] 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. [57] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [58] 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 [59]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [60] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [61] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [62] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [63] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [64] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [65] 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 [66] 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. [67] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [68] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[69] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[70] 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. [71] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [72] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [73] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [74] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [75] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [76] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [77] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [78] 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. [79] 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. [80] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [81] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [82] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [83], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [84] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [85] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [86] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [87] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [88] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [89] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [90] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [91] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [92] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [93] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [94] 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 [95]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. [96] 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</nowiki>