Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

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

Content review

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

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

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• User:Freestylefrappe. Thanks, KI 00:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This was recently discussed. It was deleted in good faith at the request of a user who has left the project. See m:Right to vanish. Without a compelling reason to ignore the user's wishes, I strongly recommend against restoration. Rossami (talk) 02:01, 1 May 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 15}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 15}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 15|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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)

4 May 2006

StarCraft_II (Talk:StarCraft_II)

This page is protected against recreation, the blue link does not mean it's been undeleted.

You may not have noticed if you haven't been reading this article recently, but it has changed a LOT since it's previous vote for deletion. For example one vote reads "there's not a shred of fact in this article" - in the version as it was then this was very much true, as I saw it before and any admin can see if they check the history (hopefully?).

The original article was recreated with a lot of rubbish including citing a YTMD page as a reference that the game was going to be released soon, but then recently updated with a lot of verifiable facts and very little speculation.

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson (an administrator apparently) deleted the article without any attempt at discussion citing the old vote for deletion, from when the article was very different as it was prior to him deleting it.

It has been stated by Blizzard (as the good version of the article prior to deletion said) that there WILL be a StarCraft II game released at some point, so this is not "crystal ball" at all, and again I will point out that the article in it's current version was verifiable facts only and thus there's no reason this should be deleted.
¬¬¬Jack Hates Jesus (yep) 09:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For reference of those who want to vote but can't see what the article was before it was deleted so they can make an informed decision (those who aren't administrators), Here is a copy of what the article looked like before it was deleted, citing a very old vote for deletion - by the way this is the same user as above, my username was just banned. see my user page for details.
¬¬¬Lesbian and bi girls are awesome {Talk beauty} 11:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Overturn per my rationale above. ¬¬¬Lesbian and bi girls are awesome {Talk beauty} 11:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted since whatever has changed in the article, Wikipedia is still not a crystal ball. Speculated unannounced games are really hard to cover encyclopaedically. By which I mean as close to impossible as makes no practical difference. Just zis Guy you know? 11:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

List of people with absolute pitch

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with absolute pitch was closed as delete. I don't recognize many of the voters so I assume few regular music editors voted. The reasons given for deletion were "Unencyclopedic, unverifiable" with no explination. There never was any attempt at verification, so I'm not sure how this was determined. Reasons given by voters for deletion include the untrue ("In professional musicians and composers, having absolute pitch is commonplace", "Besides, it's perfect pitch") and indicate that voters had not read that article or were familiar enough with the topic. Hyacinth 07:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How would you source it? I know people with perfect pitch, but when you explore the issue you find that perfect often <> absolute. I am also always suspicious of unsourced lists, and dislike bare lists (i.e. lists which add nothing to what a category would provide) and lists which include both real and fictional characters. I endorse closure but could be persuaded otherwise if there were an obvious purpose to the list other than trivia, and if I were persuaded that there are reliable sources (i.e. qualified musicologists making the claim, not the people themselves). Just zis Guy you know? 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure In the face of unanimous AfD consensus, I am forced to agree with JzG: while this is perhaps a nice concept for a list, I see no evidence of maintainability or verifiability here. Nominator is welcome to write a verifiable new list with limitations aimed at maintaining the list to a reasonable length. Xoloz 12:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crook

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook (second nomination) was closed as delete. This is probably a good decision, if you count votes. If, however, you listen to the template at the top of that AfD, it's clearly not a good close. It had 9 delete and 4 keep, once the users who the closer said weren't "counted" were removed from the tally. However, several of these delete "votes" are clearly invalid. The very first reads "Complete Delete not notable other than for creating controversial websites. porges 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)." Now, this does is probably true. However, that is clearly not at all relevant, because the reason he was on Wikipedia in the first place is that he created controversial websites; he was notable because he was notorious because of his websites. It's like saying we shouldn't have an article on Jimbo because he's not notable other than for creating Wikipedia. Later, User:71.227.177.1 left a very detailed argument about why we should have kept the article. This was completely ignored in the closing decision as the user was an anon and so did not have "suffrage." Another delete "vote" read, "Delete This article in itself is superfluous, sketchy, and seems to be borderline violating the NPOV policy. This article is constantly vandalized, and seems to lack citations where necessary. --EMC 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)." Since when is an article being vandalized, a bit unreferenced and slightly POV a valid reason to delete an article? Then there's the nom itself. The nom said that "...There is very little verifiable information in the article to support the idea that "Michael Crook" even exists as an individual, as opposed to a public persona or a project undertaken by an unknown number of people. Of the citations and external links listed at the end of the article, half of them ultimately originate from Crook himself (who, if the article is any indication, can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything), half of the remaining ones are not available at the URLs given, and the one anti-Crook site that can actually be reached is far from meeting WP:V standards and may in fact have been created by Crook himself, for all we know. The talk page is dominated by IP addresses and registered users who have never edited on any non-Crook-related subject ever, as was the last AfD on this article; how many of these are sock puppets of Michael Crook?" In short, the nominator wanted the article deleted because a) it was lacking some sources and b) the nom thought that Michael Crook sockpuppets were editing the article. The nom actually does say that Crook is probably notable enough for an article. These are clearly not valid reasons for deletion; one might post an {{unreferenced}} or a RFCU if they think there aren't enough sources or there are sockpuppets, not take it to AfD! Michael Crook is clearly notable, as the nom admits, and should not have been deleted. --Rory096 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per rory. I didn't quite get this, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted. Whatever the nominator thought, consensus was that the article should be deleted, and as I read it those advocating deletion did not agree with the nominator that Michael Crook was notable enough for an article. Therefore relisting on the basis of what was, in the end, merely the first of many opinions would be nonsensical. Consensus validly judged, it was considerate of Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:V, which is a policy, whereas WP:BIO is a guideline and its applicability to Internet trolls with 15 minutes of fame on Fox is dubious anyway) and no new evidence has been presented. (P.S. I voted 'delete', disregard this if it comes down to a vote if necessary, but I think my arguments are valid from a DRV perspective.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The guy has had less media exposure than I have (I've been on national radio four times, plus I've been interviewed at length twice on radio and featured in the Times Educational Supplement). I am definitely not notable. This guy is just another loudmouth with a website, of which there is no shortage. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd Discounting of anons and new users is within administrative discretion. Concerns over the authorship and sourcing of the article are valid reasons to delete. If anyone believes Crook is notable, they are free to write a NPOV, sourced article right now. The version deleted at AfD, however, was correctly judged. Xoloz 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted Discounting anons and new users is common closure practice. Looks like a valid AfD to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

3 May 2006

Rosario Isasi

Speedy-deleted by user:Luigi30, 19 March 2006 - presumably for no assertion of notability

First nomination, 20 Mar 06 - speedy-closed as copyvio, page deleted

Second nomination, 9 Apr 06 - closed as keep

Third nomination, closed as keep

Recently survived an AfD as Keep. The only person who offered any kind of evidence of her notability was one person linking to a bio of her that shows nothing but ordinary academic credentials. In addition, several people opposed deletion based on the presence of another AfD a couple weeks earlier which passed after six votes and no discussion whatsoever. I personally would prefer to it deleted since as it stands, she has not been demonstrated to have any more notability than anyone else in academia (thus failing WP:BIO). However what I would really like to see is the ruling overturned from "Keep" to "No consensus", as there was by no means a rough consensus to keep that article and if or when I re-list it I don't want everybody opposing it just because it was closed as a consensus keep before. — GT 23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• As the closing admin, what can I say, she's a professor. Unlike, say, Internet memes, there are no pressing concerns of verfiability for American academics and I had no reason to interpret the consensus any way other than 'keep'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, let's look at the "consensus". Of 19 people who showed up to the page,

- 76 of us were unconvinced of the subject's notability and supported deletion (Tony Bruguier, Fan1967, AKADriver, IrishGuy, Simon Cursitor, GT, Brian G. Crawford, and Pete.Hurd). (Edit: Simon Cursitor felt the "retention" of the article was not "justified" but apparently not on grounds of notability.)

- 5 people (badlydrawnjeff, Terence Ong, Anville, Jeff Burdges, and TheKMan) said "Keep, notable", without supporting their claim. They evidently think AfD is a vote. (Edit: on the basis, I should assume, of the evidence below)

- 5 people (MetaMagician3000, David Sneek, David.Mestel, Jcuk, and Monicasdude) opposed deletion on account of there being another AfD shortly before. MetaMagician3000, David.Mestel, and indirectly Monicasdude used the word "notable" without providing any support.

- Only one person (Loremaster) came even close to providing support for the notability claim, referring to a biography that didn't contain any evidence of notability in my view and it doesn't look like anyone else thought so either as none of the Keep votes referred to it.

Going by a vote on the merits of the article, it's 9 keeps versus 7 deletes. When it comes to actually discussing the merits of the article, which is the purpose of the AfD process, the keep supporters didn't really even make an attempt to convince the rest of us that she was notable. The only discussion was on whether this AfD should have been filed. You should go by the results of the discussion, not vote counting (which only yields a far from overwhelming 63% keep rate anyway), and the discussion revolved around two outcomes: "Delete", or "Close AfD as out of process". For you to claim that the consensus arrived at was "Keep" is grossly misrepresenting what actually happened. — GT 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to allow you to misrepresent my comments on the matter. I said "Keep, appears to be notable enough, but requires major expansion." This comes AFTER Loremaster and the nominee provided evidence of her nobility. I won't speak for Terence Ong, but his comment at least gives the impression of similar rationale, as did David.Mestel's initial comment, Anville's, and the KMan, who's comment you considered "a joke." Meanwhile, you don't seem to question Crawford's comment ("Wikipedia is not a who's who"), or note Pete.Hurd's questionable rationale following the wealth of information in the debate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's how it looked to me as you did not specify why you thought it was notable. I'd still be overjoyed if someone could refence some actual facts rather than pointing to a bio and google results and think that notability is obvious. — GT 02:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to map out each multiple assertion in my commentary to make it worth something. I'm not sure why you don't think the bio and scholar results aren't "actual facts," though. I mean, what else do you want to go by in this case? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Because her bio only talks about her degrees, her research interests, and some organizations she is a part of. This is typical of any professor or academic (as well as her having been published in journals several times) and per WP:PROFTEST we should look for something that makes her particularly notable. If an academic person is really notable then you should be able to find many non-academic sources which refer to her and assert her notability. I haven't seen one yet in this case. — GT 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

-- As another of the names you have hauled in as corroboration for your "line", GT, it would have been "nice" to have been told (perhaps the e-mail is trrapped in the Blue Frog D-O-S of yesterday's date) and even nicer to have been cited correctly. My objection to the entry (at the time that I voted) was not "non-notable", but that what was then there was too much a stub to be a workable entry if challenged. Anyway, <irony>thank you</irony> for bringing me into this, and, in order not to muddy the waters, I formally (as good discipline requires) register a No Vote on this. -- Simon Cursitor 07:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So instead of suggesting expanding the stub you decided it did not "justify retention". Under what circumstances would you arrive at that conclusion other than if it was non-notable or unverifiable? Regardless I struck your name above, although my point was not really to engage in vote-counting as I believe that's what the closing admin did and is incorrect procedure. — GT 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure Process was followed and no new relevant information has been brought up. JoshuaZ 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would not personally consider this person to meet the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies but enough people did during the AFD discussions that I think we should give the article the benefit of doubt for now. Endorse closure but without prejudice against renomination if the article is not improved in a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Endorse Closure. Ignoring the point that something really needs to be done about the constant AfDing of consensus keep articles, but I'm not convinced there wasn't a consensus to do anything on this one, and I'm still very convinced she meets the strict standards for notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I just want to remind the last two voters that what I am seeking here is an overturn from "Keep" to "No consensus" which doesn't affect the status of the article but will make a difference during its next AfD where people will look and see 2 keeps and then cry foul. — GT 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Qué? I closed as 'keep'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, misread the nom. I forget that people take keep results here occasionally. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the line between no consensus and keep doesn't mean that much and I can see how someone would view it as consensus. Kotepho 06:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The line between them is that next time this article goes up for AfD, an army of inclusionists will vote to keep immediately solely on the basis that it was kept twice before, even though the first keep was based upon a turnout of 6 people, none of whom engaged in any sort of discussion, and the second keep was not truly a keep at all. — GT 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd suggest to GT that if he chooses to renominate the article for deletion and opens his rationale with "This was closed twice, but I dispute the first close because of foo and the second close because of bar. Please examine the article before voting 'keep' on the basis that it was kept twice before", people will pay attention. That has been my experience, at least. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I gather I'm going to have to do it that way, although I get the feeling if I list it again I'll only get a bunch more "I feel it in my gut" keep votes, as through 3 AfD's and a deletion review I'm still waiting for fact number one supporting her notability. — GT 08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure The first reason for my position is that a request to overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus" is almost meaningless. Although some would argue that a no consensus result makes another later AfD easier to fashion, the end result is the same. In any event, a very compelling case would be needed for me to sanction the de minimis change, and this isn't. More importantly, on the merits, I would have closed this exactly the same way. Xoloz 12:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, can be re-nominated any time, if there are problems with significance / verifiability, tag the article - if it is tagged with {{importance}} for a month and nothing is done that makes a subsequent AfD easier to justify> But actually it looks as if she is a prominent bioconservative, and this is just a crap article on a good subject. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cajun Nights MUSH

Relist Cajun Nights MUSH

• This entry was deleted because the Mush is not popular? the number of google hits is irrelevant. Well, as far as Mushes go, all of them are unpopular. Mushes and Muds aren't the same since the creation of MMoRPGs (Massive Mult-User Roleplaying Games) like Everquest or World of Warcraft. Mushes have always been a small niche in regards to Muds, and as such didn't attract many players.

• This mush has historical sigificiance, and as such, regardless if it is popular, well known, up and running or dead and gone. It is still one of the only mushes to be running concurrently for over 10 years. However, the mush is up and running and still attracting players.

Deletion Debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cajun_Nights_MUSH%282%29

John 'Imagicka' Blackthorne 16:20, 3 May 2006 (EST)

• Keep deleted "Historical significance"? Gee, I must have missed that exhibit last time I was at the Smithsonian. All kidding aside, there was a 4-to-1 consensus to delete, and the reasoning of the delete voters (low Google score, poor ranking on Mudconnector) was more persuasive than the one guy who wanted to keep it (because he said he'd heard of it before). I can't imagine that anyone would have closed the debate differently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, spammy article about software of no particular evident importance. Just zis Guy you know? 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid Afd. Nomination provides few reasons for reexamination, none of them compelling. Regarding historical significance, if the mush is still running in 20 more years, I will reconsider then. Xoloz 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

2 May 2006

Dualabs

Closing admin says "The outcome of the debate was keep and expand", but as near as I can tell a total of zero (that's zero, none, nada) of the participants in the discussion suggested keeping and expanding the article. Admin discretion in closing is reasonable, but "discretion" doesn't (and shouldn't) mean wholesale misrepresentation of the discussion (whether intentional or not). Link to debate. Nandesuka 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. The close was a clear error. Nandesuka 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• You want to pick a fight with Tony Sidaway? Go right ahead. He has a long history of completely ignoring process when it conflicts with his (generally correct) view of what is of encyclopaedic value. I'd say merge and redirect, which seems to be the best way forward if we can't find more to say about the subject than this. Just zis Guy you know? 11:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Debate was here. While I would probably have voted keep or merge, myself, we need to stand firm that administrator's closing discretion is not the same thing as ignoring every single vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• While I frequently disagree with Tony, I must say that the closure is not completely out of touch with reality. From the nomination we have: "The interesting information about the technology employed could probably be usefully merged to US_Census" and the last vote is "Merge with Census information, easy". Two people saying that merging some or all of the content might be an idea, and doing so would require us to not delete. The difference with a merge and a keep is not all that great, since merging (and unmerging) can be done by anybody. Also the argument for deletion is only the "it is not notable" assertion, and considering that we are talking about data handling for a huge dataset as the U.S. Census, I am not convinced that assessment is a good one. Hence, I will endorse Tony's decision to not delete, and recommend that the article be merged if feasible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure as no real useful rationale for deletion, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I've considered this close very carefully. The information is verifiable and is too important to remove from Wikipedia--DUALabs compression format poses an ongoing problem for 1960 and 1970 Census microdata [1]. While a merge may be in order, I considered that article to be too new (just over a week) for this. A merge can be attempted by anyone--no need for a deletion discussion. After the close, I added another reference and added more information about the company. Of course the suggestion that the company that handled the compression of *all* of the 1960 and 1970 census data archive is "non-notable" is simply incomprehensible. --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Being more process wonkish I probably would have closed it "no consensus, keep" as I'm not seeing a consensus there, too few people commented, but I think Tony did the Right Thing, if possibly for the wrong reason. It would have been a keep either way, (when in doubt, keep, after all...) Change close reason but keep closed ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think two 'delete's and a 'merge' constitute a clear consensus to delete. *The closing admin's use of discretion was appropriate. I suppose he might have said, "No consensus" rather than "consensus to keep and expand", but I endorse the closure. Change the close reason if that's useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Contra JzG, I will gladly disagree with Mr. Sidaway when given good cause, but this isn't it. The nominator suggested merging, and the final commenter cast his lot that way. That's two out of four "votes", if one counts. In a debate with so few participants, it is also not illogical for closer to give some small weight to his own opinion of article merit. Closer also provided an explicit rationale. This case is within discretion. Xoloz 13:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• At first I thought the close was somewhat reasonable, but when I thought about it more I realized- if this article was about a company that still existed, this would have unquestionably been deleted as vanispamcruftertisement. Do these guys get special treatment because it was several years ago? If Sidaway wanted to make the points he made in the closure, he should have commented on the Afd. He could have relisted it for more input rather than acting in his unfortunately-too-typical "I am unquestionably right so I will disregard everyone else" fashion. Then, we'd have seen what other people thought of his rationale, and we wouldn't be here at DRV. The sources do verify a couple things- the name of the company, the guy who started it. If the census employee had not happened to start a new company for this, we wouldn't even be having this conversation- nobody would think of an article on a single individual just because they happened to work for a large organization. If there's something useful here to merge, let it be merged to United States Census Bureau. However, if the determination is that this is just a small crufty detail, unworthy of a merge, then it doesn't warrant its own article, either. Anyway, I think the answer is already clear for purposes of DRV- overturn, relist, and ask Sidaway to not close any more AFDs. I'm not even saying his answer is neccessarily wrong, but if he wants to be that activist, he should get involved in the afd discussion, not just swoop in and close according to his whim. Friday (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You're saying that you think an article about a modern company that handled, say, the compression of data sets for the 2000 Census would be deleted as "non-notable"? As I have said above, I find the suggestion quite incomprehensible. We certainly don't want articles on every single landscaping company, but at the same time we should avoid deleting obviously important information. --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So, a company that has their hands on the data is "notable", but a company that has their hands on the grass clippings is obviously not? That's silly- you're just showing your own pro-IT bias here. If the modern company that did work for the 2000 census was covered in several reliable third-party sources, certainly they should be included. If all we can dig up is a government doc that says "we hired company XYZ for this", then they should not be. It all comes down to verifiability. And, simple verification that something existed is not enough. Census Bureau is a "notable" organization, but this does not automatically make everyone they do business with notable. Friday (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Show me where Business Week, or the Wall Street Journal talked about this company, and it will probably instantly change my mind. WP:CORP explains all of this- it's a pretty decent guideline (but the core concern here is WP:V, of course). Friday (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • There is no concern about verifiability here. The article documents the precise contracts under which DUALabs performed the tasks for US government agencies. WP:CORP is a guideline for inclusion. Not every encyclopedic company is in the pages of Business Week or WSJ. "The simple verification that something existed is not enough" is of course incorrect. That is precisely and solely what verification entails. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It surprises me that someone who's been around for a long time would so misunderstand what we do here. We try to avoid making our own judgments about what is interesting or important, due to personal biases. Instead, we use reliable sources. Your dog is interesting to you, and would apparently be verifiable according to you also, assuming it has registration papers, a local dog permit, or whatever. There are some editors who believe that anything that can be shown to exist needs an article about it, but I believe they're still quite in the minority. Take it up on WT:V if you wish, but last I noticed, the consensus among experienced editors was that we need verifiability by reputable sources, not just by any record we can find. Friday (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The government contract numbers under which DUALabs performed the job are in the article. This satisfies the verification criterion. The question of whether there should be a separate article on this company is a different matter, which I left open in my closing comments, to wit: "Keep and expand Failing expansion, may be considered for a merge with US Census". --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: It seems to me that, with respect, the last critique is returning to the controversy over the game (game) -- namely the view that a reputable source is one which, by its existence or non-existence, supports the view which TPTB within Wiki have already come to. Moreover, my understanding was that Deletion review was to review deletions, not to act as a covert means of deleting articles which had reached either a "keep" consenses, or a "no consensus" position and therfore fell to be kept rather than deleted. But increasingly it would appear (to me) that Wiki process is directed toward deleting articles, rather than making poor articles good ones. IMHO, Simon Cursitor 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
            • It would of course be wrong to interpret the verifiability criterion to mean that we can only ever have articles about companies that have been written about in business newspapers. It does look to me as if at least some of the move to review this close has come from this misconception. There is no reason to doubt the sources available on this company and its products, which are still in regular use by researchers, some thirty years after its demise. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Sjakkalle, JzG and Tom Harrison. Three votes isn't much to go on, and I think it's okay that Tony used his discretion here. FreplySpang (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure 4 people does not consensus make, even if it is 75% to delete. There is also that whole when in doubt don't delete thing. Kotepho 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• The way I see this is 1 delete by putting on prod, 1 keep by removing prod, 2 delete on AfD, 1 merge on AfD and AfD nom who suggested possible merge. So roughly speaking that's 3.5 delete, 2.5 keep (in some form). That means no consensus to delete. Once that has been sorted it's not up to the deletion process to decide if article should be expanded, kept, or merged as they can do decided through normal talk page channels. (Disclaimer: please don't think that I'm strictly vote counting here, I know AfD is not a vote, but the figures are just a way of expressing the lack of consensus to delete). Petros471 17:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Notwithstanding the unintentionally humorous complaint from a user above who makes a habit of out-of-process experimental deletion, I think Tony did the right thing by stepping in to save the article. The lack of any serious debate or meaningful participation in the original AfD essentially renders the deletion process void. In my view, this is a proper use of admin discretion. I say endorse close and ask Sidaway to close all AFDs. Incidentally, Dualabs was extensively featured in a Washington Post article, Ginda, Thomas. Old Census, New Twist; Four Area Districts , Mar 29, 1970. pg. E1, 2 pgs; and its business problems were discussed in the Wall Street Journal, Jacobs, Sanford. "Data Analyst Sues to Save Program Priced at $8,000, Vs. U.S.'s $110 Tag", Dec 18, 1981. p. 25. -- JJay 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• That looks like verifiability to me. I hope those sources make it into the article. I'm still uncomfortable with the level of activism in the closure, but it looks like the answer was the right one, at least. Friday (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I should hope that all administrators would be activists in their promotion of our deletion policy. One thing that our deletion policy has always been clear on is that one does not delete verifiable information from an encyclopedia where an alternative exists that has not yet been fully explored. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There are a number of things I might've done differently, but Tony certainly made the right call given the circumstances: if in doubt, don't delete. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, good closure. Unfortunately, sometimes facts and reality must disturb the delicate vote-counting machine that is AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• In a debate as anemic as this, I can't see a strong reason to say that the article should be deleted; if I had seen it, I would have relisted it. That said, a merge would be more appropriate here, unless someone is actually interested in doing the grunt work of expanding the article (I know I have better things to do). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bands (neck)

No discussion that I can see.

Page created by User:Ncox. His talk page.

Page was labelled as copyvio by User:Marcika and deleted with summary yep, copyvio by User:Geni. Don't see that any attempt was made to contact the page author.

The alleged copyvio tagged by Marcika was of a Geocities page: http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Bands.htm

Looks to me like the Geocities page this was supposed to be a copy of was in fact a page with the same information written by the same Wikipedian, who has chosen to upload his researched text to Wikipedia. The user is Ncox, the Geocities page belongs to noelcox, and the text credited Noel Cox as author of the website which was taken as a reference. It isn't conventional to sign articles, and in most cases not good enough to cite something you wrote as an external link, but this doesn't make the page a copyvio, and the text itself had merit and named independent sources. If he wrote it hisself, it ain't a copyvio, and the information is useful and valuable. Recommend undelete. Smerdis of Tlön 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I would note, though, that the title as is seems to indicate that "Bands" is a species of "neck." It should be restored under a better title--Bands (apparel) or something. · rodii · 22:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, undelete it -- I apologize for my overly fast conclusion that it was copyvio. -- Marcika 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Given the rampant abuse we've had with copyright violators, I can not condemn the users who acted on it as a probable copyvio. (By the way, the page history shows that the copyvio tag was added by Ewlyahoocom, not Marcika.) The geocities page is explicitly tagged as copyrighted - a status incompatible with GFDL. The {{copyvio}} tag sat on the article unanswered for over a week - ample time for the author to have cleared up the copyright question (though it would have been courteous if someone had also added a note to the author's talk page). Now that the author has been contacted, overturn speedy-deletion iff the author confirms release. Rossami (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the notices about copyrights on the edit screens, I would say that if the original author chose to duplicate his text here, he has licensed it for us under the GFDL even if he claimed copyright on the version he posted to his web site. Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That is an assumption that I'd rather not test in court, especially when we don't need to in this specific case. The user's contribution history shows that he's still active. We can afford to wait. Rossami (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Restore per above. The user could also just repost the page himself. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy restore is a completely inappropriate response to a copyright violation. If the original editor wants to give us verifiable proof that they are the same as the person who wrote the geocities page, and they remove the incompatible copyright off that page, then we can talk. Till then, it has to stay deleted, by law. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Insert Text

Original Discussion

Later Discussion

and for anyone who is able to read deletedpage histories Talk:Insert text

I don't really see a problem with leaving it a red link, but based on this, it does seem to be a bigger vandalism magnet that the redirect would have been, also in all seriousness I just don't see anyone creating a serious article on the topic of Insert text in the immediate future, it only seems natural to treat the same as Image:Example.jpg, and all the others, not to mention, as long as Insert text exists, it can be watch-listed, which gives an immediate red flag whenever there's a 'newbie test'--Minor copy edit name 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted pages can also be watchlisted. Watchlisting it as a deleted page has the advantage that it's tagged with N when it shows up on the list - an immediate trigger for investigation. On the other hand, I don't have any objections to this redirect either. More to the point, however, I do not see any evidence that this page was ever discussed at Redirects for deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and list if appropriate. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore the redirect, mostly harmless. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore the redirect There wasn't an RfD. Had there been one, the result would be keep, I'd assume, because redirects are cheap, and this one foils useless edits. Since there wasn't an RfD anyway, I'm taking the liberty of recreating the thing. Xoloz 13:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore the redirect or rather, endorse Xoloz' recreation. Congratulations, you've found a cross-namespace redirect that I approve of! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse recreation. For the record I've also undeleted Insert text (lowercase t). Thryduulf 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Conditionals

See Tfd, a similar problem as with Template:Ifdef listed below:

Template:Infobox Conditionals(edit talk links history) was a model template explaining and exploring an alternative to the infamous hiddenStructure kludge breaking accessibilty with some text / speech / legacy browsers. It's quoted as example on a few pages (see backlinks), it used Qif for some time, and was later modified to use #if:. The Tfd stated that it's redundant because another model Template:Infobox(edit talk links history) now also uses #if:. Therefore the decision was redirect, and so far it made sense. But meanwhile Infobox was modified to use neither #if: nor the similar ifdef technique, and links to Infobox Conditionals promising to explain some kind of if-technique are trapped in this episode of the WP:AUM wars. As the premise of the Tfd is no longer true I propose to nullify the decision. That would allow to cut the redirect and revert to the last version actually using #if:. -- Omniplex 20:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

MusE

Latest version of this software article was deleted after four people voted it non-notable. No one else commented. Reasons it is notable:

• Simply because it has an annoyingly similar name to MuSE, but is not the same program. Redirecting to MuSE from MusE is totally wrong and misleading.

Other notability criteria:

• Featured as a cover story in Linux Magazine. Other articles by third parties: [2] [3]
• One of the major components of PlanetCCRMA, a major distribution for musicians. — Omegatron 14:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate. If those references weren't in the original article, that might explain the deletion. I'd have to see the original article. This is one of the reasons why I like applying WP:CITE and WP:NOR templates first, instead of just going out and deleting them. Anyway, by WP:SOFTWARE this system definitely meets notability criteria. Captainktainer * Talk 15:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Added a link to the deleted revision. — Omegatron 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but recreate with sources Afd closure was correct, but with new sources seems worth recreating. I can see from the afd that MusE and MuSE were regarded as the same thing, so don't forget the otheruses at the top :). (A reference describing the confusion between the two similar names might be good to show they they are distinct, to stop this confusion happening again. Regards, MartinRe 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There was a disambig at the top of both articles before deletion. — Omegatron 18:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, obviously insufficient research at AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• And indeed before AfD, otherwise it would not have been nominated in the first place. Just zis Guy you know? 15:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse per MartinRe what was technically a decision not to delete. I've reverted the article to the last non-redirect version and added the links given by Omegatron above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1 May 2006

Note: 30 April 2006 was empty

Scott Thayer

Article was brought to AfD with the argument that it was NN vanity. Discussion went along, User:W.marsh brought out links showing that he met WP:BIO in at least one area, and, by my count, two. Delete votes continued after W.marsh's assertion of notability with the same arguments as the nom, suggesting that policy was ignored by voters. The decision was question at the deleting admin's talk page [4], where he simply went with a straight vote assuming that the delete votes took into consideration the new information while reaching a consensus. I do not consider that User:Titoxd worked out of process or made a bad faith close, but I do feel an incorrect decision was made.

Personal opinion: Undelete, as the article clearly meets basic standards not notability set out by WP guidelines. A relisting may be worthwhile to generate clearer consensus, but given the guidelines, I don't think it's necessary, but I'll leave that to others. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Reviewing the AFD discussion, I do not see the subsequent users either ignoring W.marsh's evidence or ignoring the policy. It appears to me that they were merely disagreeing with W.marsh's interpretation of WP:BIO. Having reviewed the links provided during the AFD discussion, I find a small sidebar story in Business week and 2 quotes in local news. Looking at the google test evidence sited during the AFD discussion, I actually find that they were over-stated (returning 11 and 141 hits respectively), apparently because the nominator failed to exclude the duplicates. This person exists and appears to be a professional in his field but I can not find anything sufficiently distinguishing to meet our generally accepted standards of inclusion. Rossami (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted as written, but without prejudice against possible re-creation if he truly is notable. The article at the time of the deletion was two short sentences and a link to his personal website. The article was written by a user named Robothayer (note thayer in name), whose only contributions were to this article, making this almost certainly vanity. I'd suggest that having two lengthly debates about this two-line wonder would not be useful to Wikipedia in general. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per above. Valid decision per policy and per process. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• CHange to abstain. The gorunds for notability asserted in the original article are well short of what I owuld consider actually notable, but Google Scholar indicates that he has a significant academic reputation in the field of robotics, which is pretty much absent from the article as written. If Starblind would like to wander along to my Talk page or contact me some other way I think we could probably write a Much Better Article. Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I probably could as well, which is why I brought it here instead of just recreating it. Given that most editors here have no bias against recreating it with notability intact, that's a good sign, but I'm honestly not seeing the difference. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure Assuming good faith, I agree with Rossami that no evidence firmly suggest editors ignored W. Marsh's evidence, only that they chose to disagree with it. One reason this may be so is provided by Starblind: whatever one's stance on the WP:BIO, the concerns of WP:AUTO were also relevant, and may have carried more weight in editor's mind. Valid and conclusive AfD, closed without flaw in process. Xoloz 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence to suggest that WP:AUTO was weighed in the context of the debate, however, nor is WP:AUTO de facto a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess it's one of those differences that makes no difference. Just zis Guy you know? 15:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted but allow re-creation. If he's notable, someone will write him an article. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The dudes hitting #1 on Yahoo and #2 on Google.--TheMadTim 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted without prejudice per Starblind. I really can't see the point of doing a Deletion Review on a two-sentence article - it's not a case of masses of work being lost. David | Talk 09:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, with no prejudice against re-creation. I don't care about WP:AUTO in this case, but the evidence for even minimal notability is very weak. Maybe in a couple months or years he'll meet notability standards. Captainktainer * Talk 09:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• As the closer, I have no objection against recreation iff there is someone actively editing and improving the article and can prove notability. Personally, I'd rather have no article than a sub-sub-stub. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete the article--216.7.254.254 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ifdef

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_18#Template:Ifdef, this Tfd stated erroneously that this is a fork of {{Qif}}, which got its own Mfd:

1. Unlike Qif it doesn't use named parameters, its user interface is different.
2. Unlike Qif m:Template:Ifdef can be substituted, because it has no else part.
3. Its code (23 bytes) is a shorthand for a technique documented on a help page.
4. This technique isn't advanced, esoteric, or depending on parser functions.
5. The Tfd was part of a campaign to replace {{Qif}} everywhere by the new #if:.
6. It works in certain cases where #if: fails, see mediazilla:5678, Meta, and here.
7. Ifdef is used to analyze problems with Qif and #if:, it has various backlinks.
8. It was used without problems in {{Tlsp}}, {{Tlx}}, and others for several weeks.
9. These templates were "upgraded" to #if: shortly before the end of the Tfd.

-- Omniplex 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Futuristic Sex Robotz

The full debate can be read here.

This article, based on the nerdcore group of the same name, was deleted based on the fact that it "is an 'internet thing' that is new and not widely spread on the internet" and that many of the votes to keep were made by new users, anon users, or mission-driven editors. It basically became a flamewar with many of the deletionists quoting registration dates to discredit votes.

I propose a review of the deletion based on the fact that it has now been 2 months since the final decision to delete the article and several new pieces of information have surfaced that support the article's notability. The group now meets the notability requirements for "performers outside of mass media traditions" in WP:MUSIC.

• '"Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."'
  • One of their songs based on WoW is now slated to be on "first ever Nerdcore Compilation CD."[[5]]
  • The compilation is mentioned on "the official website for the Rec.Music.Hip-Hop Usenet newsgroup". Obviously, this is a notable and verifiable source, not to mention that it is a site dedicated mostly to mainstream hip-hop. I think if it warrants mention on there it should have a WP article.
• '"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre."'
  • The group has released 15 songs on their first full-length release and recently released one single based on the soon to be released movie and current internet phenomenon Snakes on a Plane. They even have entered the single in a contest on [[6]] to get the song included in the Snakes on a Plane soundtrack.[[7]] The song currently has 750 votes. Most songs have fewer than 100 votes with a few songs recieving 200-300 votes.
• Also, one of FCYTravis' arguments for deletion is that it has only "344 total Google hits" is irrelevant because it now gets [35,100 total hits]. I think a gain of 34756 hits in a little under 2 months is astonishing.

Thank you for your time.--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 10:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Recommendation to withdraw DRV Wait until they win the Snakes on a Plane contest, which they will. As soon as they win it, they'll become notable (because it'll be reported in more "mainstream" news), at which point it'll be a great idea to reinstate it. As it is, all this DRV will do is make it harder to reconstitute the article, due to a more hardened deletionist response, which would be a shame. As it is, unfortunately, none of the sources you mentioned qualify as sources to establish notability under a wikilawyered interpretation of the notability rules, and the "Google Test," on AfD and DRV, isn't enough to keep an article around. Captainktainer * Talk 10:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Concur with above: In addition, and knowing nothing about Nerdcore, (which presumably is quite new or non-notable if there's never been a compilation CD), "first ever Nerdcore Compilation CD" would be additional claim to notability once it has happened. Stephen B Streater 10:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawing DRV I see your point, so I'll withdraw my DRV for the time being. Thanks for your help and support. I don't really know much about deletion policies or those regarding DRV so I guess I didn't realize that now isn't a good time to propose this. I was just being bold. On a side not, I want to point out that at the time that the compilation was first introduced, I assume, as my reference claims, that it was the only compilation but there are others now.--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 11:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

29 April 2006

List of "All your base are belong to us" external links

User:InShaneee deleted this page without even offering an opportunity for discussion. I had even marked the page as "in use" and explained that I was in the process of fleshing it out to be more than purely links — I planned to add a considerable amount of narrative explaining the AYB phenomenon and other information. However, it is now protected and I can't even do that. (I admit that I hastily recreated the page outside of DRV at first and added an "inuse" tag to try to discourage its subsequent deletion while I worked on the page, but that's really beside the point right now.) ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:14 (UTC)

• Keep deleted It's like 30 external links...even if there was some content added to the page, does any article really need 30 external links (keep in mind, there's more on the parent article here, too)? --InShaneee 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, if you would have allowed me to work on the article, you would have seen that it was intended to be MUCH more than just links. I pointed this out and you simply ignore it. And yes, in this case this Internet phenomenon does merit a larger number of links due the very nature of the subject. The external links demonstrate its widespread and varied usage on the Internet. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:37 (UTC)
    • "With all due respect", even the best article on wikipedia shouldn't have 30 links in it. --InShaneee 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • In this limited case, the sheer volume of links demonstrates the phenomenon. I agree wholeheartedly that the vast majority of articles don't merit 30 links; however, the vast majority of articles aren't about Internet phenomena. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:45 (UTC)
      • FWIW, there are plenty of featured articles with far more than 30 references. There is no arbitrary cutoff point. Presuming all the external links offer something unique, then I don't have a problem with being integrated into the main article. Pcb21 Pete 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
        • (I meant to exclude references). Keep in mind though that none of these are references...just other places that the animation is mentioned. --InShaneee 21:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Wikipedia is not a repository of links. --Toffile 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. First of all, simple lists of external links are quite clearly speediable under WP:CSD A7. Second, it could not have been expanded, because that's clearly contrary to what the title says it is. Third, the creator violated WP:CIVIL on Shane's talk. --Rory096 20:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• If you're sure it can be more than a list of links, why is it named like a list of links? And why didn't you build it in your userspace and then move it? That's what I do if there's any chance that the article might be speedied, till I have enough there to justify keeping it around. I'd still advise you to go that route if this stays deleted. Just me though. Endorse Deletion ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Should it have been named List of "All your base are belong to us" external links and related exposition instead? I thought it was long enough as-is and honestly didn't think anyone would delete a page tagged as "in use" without at least discussing it first. Silly me. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:43 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If it's 30 external links plus "a considerable amount of narrative explaining the AYB phenomenon", then, since we already have at All your base are belong to us, it's essentially 30 links and some stuff that should be merged to the main article. And we already have List of "All your base are belong to us" computer and video game references and List of "All your base are belong to us" print and electronic references, for god's sake. How much AYBABTUcruft do we need? · rodii · 21:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted / endorse deletion Wikipedia's community standards sometimes might seem vague, with very few actual rules. One of the few true rules we do have is "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links" (quoted from WP:NOT). The creator seems to be defending the article by saying it's not just a list of external links, even though it's obviously titled as one. That makes every bit as much sense as if I protested the deletion of an article called List of things Andrew Lenahan has eaten for breakfast by saying I was really going to make it into an article about the socioeconomic repercussions of the Crimean War. Whatever the article was intended to be, the information can go in the main All Your Base article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since Wikipedia is not a web directory and there's no use for a whole list of AYBABTU external links, relevant ones should be in the main article and any other ones shouldn't be here. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that ALL of the links are relevant in demonstrating a different facet of the phenomenon. I think that's the point that's being overlooked here. It's not like the vast majority of other articles, where external links all point to slight variations on the main topic. The links were removed from the main article after widespread complaint that the article was just a list of links. So then the links get spawned off to a new page and it is deleted while still under construction, as it were. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 22:08 (UTC)
    • They all demonstrate the phenomenon, but not all of them are needed TO demonstrate the phenonmenon. --InShaneee 23:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy Valid CSD-A3. Am somewhat dissappointed with the resulting mini-edit war over the main AYB article though, with the link to the disputed page being removed four times by User:InShaneee, and added back in three times by User:Brossow, all in one day. Regards, MartinRe 22:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion A3 applies here. If there is a case to be made for this page, I'd recommend Brossow finish a draft in his userspace before posting, providing the context that could keep this article from falling under A3. Until then, under the letter of CSD A3, and the spirit of WP:NOT, this page remains a bad idea. Xoloz 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy Valid speedy deletion under criteria A3. --Allen3 ^talk 23:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse as per User:Starblind
• Endorse deletion - as per Wikipedia policy that this is not a repository of links. FCYTravis 02:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per all the above. Almost worth adding to WP:BAI. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as CSD A3 applies here, as well as WP:NOT. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and recommend Xoloz's advice is taken. Thryduulf 18:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease

Petaholmes deleted the page noting it is the copy of copyrighted page quoted in links, hence copyright violation. Clearly, it is not. I have since recreated the page, since It's impossible to compare the two when one of them doesn't exist anymore. Mikie 15:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since you have re-created the page, DRV is pretty pointless at this point. But please, please do not re-create pages on your own without going through deletion review in the future. A cursory look of the page indicates it is different from the external linked page. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• I've got to agree with Kimchi.sg. There are a lot of deletionists on Wikipedia, and creating a page outside of DRV just encourages them to be more aggressive, thinking that "If I can't get my way this time, I'll game the system and get it later!" At least DRV mollifies them and lets them have their say. Captainktainer 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• There are also a lot of policy wonks who vote to delete stuff that violates policy. The fact that much of this is incessantly recreated may make these people functionally indistinguishable from deletionists. WP:AGF makes it extremely hard to use the word deletionist in such general terms as you do without risking censure. Just zis Guy you know? 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop creating new project pages for the *sole* purpose of bolstering your arguements in the debates. It doesn't make your arguements look better (once people see what your arguements rest on). Also the the initial "policy wonk" page you cited labelled/stereotyped a specific person. That doesn't really help you're case, when you're trying to discourage branding people with labels. Also, threats of censure aren't helpful. If somebody has done something wrong, you should be able to explain what that was, and why, without threats. If anything action with a specific person is warranted (obviously not in this case) you should take the matter up with elsewhere, not here. --Rob 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Policy wonk / process wonk are two terms in very common use on WikiEN-L, perhaps you think I should define them separately every time I use the terms? And are you comfrotable with the blanket labelling of large numbers of editors as "deletionists"? Do you think that reflects WP:AGF? I don't. Whihc is why I explained that, in some cases, removal of content is driven by strong commitment to the project not by some mythical desire to delete. YMMV. Just zis Guy you know? 10:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification: The deleted version of this article was Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease (PBFD) as an apparent copyvio of http://numbat.murdoch.edu.au/caf/pbfd.htm. The recreated version has since been moved to Psittacine beak and feather disease per naming conventions. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Whilst re-creating the page without review was the wrong thing (though understandable), now it has happened lets just use this as an official way to stop (or otherwise) it being speedied under G4. I say this page doesn't look like a copyvio and therefore should be kept. Petros471 18:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• My cursory examination of the page doesn't reveal a glaring copyvio, but I certainly might have missed something. Are there any extended passages that show an uncomfortable similarity? (Note that I'm not a stranger to looking for plagiarism: User:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. G8 only applies to commercial sources of information. That edu link isn't commercial. It doesn't look close enough to warrant putting on WP:CV. Kotepho 21:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question: why has noone asked Petaholmes to explain why she deleted the article and what she saw as copyvio? Wouldn't it be relevant to judging her deletion of the article? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• The page has been undeleted and cleaned up by someone, and I have added some comments to the talk page. I have also received an email from Dr. Ross Perry with some new relevant information which he wishes me to add. Now, this can not possibly be plagiarism, can it? Mikie 02:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: The page has not been undeleted. It was recreated (by you) at a different title. To date, you remain the only editor to make more than minor formatting changes to the page.
    To your second point, content added with permission is not a copyright violation. However if challenged, the burden falls on you to prove that permission was validly given. I recommend that you copy the full text of the email onto the Talk page to document the permission. And even in that case, please expect some skepticism. We have had cases where a vandal forged such an assertion of release by the copyright holder. Rossami (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Before adding this new relevant information please consider WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. --pgk^(talk) 15:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I got it now. Page was recreated by me, then cleaned up and renamed by someone else. I want everyone to understand that this subject is something of great importance to me and very personal. I do understand that in my frustration and ignorance of Wiki rules I have broken quite a few of them, and I sincerely apologize for that. All I wanted to do is to contribute to this place with what I can. I have every intention of obeying every rule here and the Copyright Law, and I have no problem with ANY discussion and/or requesting backup on the Release of Copyrighted information or articles, but when the page is simply deleted because an admin decides at half past midnight that my writing is a blatant copy of someone else's work, that gets me going, and how. Mikie 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Restore previous edits and splice. --William Allen Simpson 14:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, does not look like a copyvio to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

27 April 2006

The Amazing Racist

The Amazing Racist page was deleted, on the grounds, as far as I understand it, that the Amazing Racist is a non-notable person. The Deletion Talk bit is here : [8]A Google search for "Amazing Racist", quotes included, brings up 58,800 results, Yahoo about 27,800. This page [9] has had 83650 views. I've never seen the original article, but I've created a version of how I think it should look on my user page here : User:TheMadTim. The guy is a lot more notable than some of the entries here on Wikipedia. --TheMadTim 11:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : The article should be included. [WP:WEB] - Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - The person in question fulfills this criteria, having been a contributor to a commercial published work.

OR 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. - Do the Google search. You'll see the videos on everything from MySpace to Shoutwire.

[WP:BIO] also states that it can include "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions". You can buy the DVD on Amazon! DVD on sale at Amazon

2nd edit : Why are people saying I hve not given a reason? I have! It fulfills the criteria for inclusion set out in the two wikipedia policies listed above, namely [WP:WEB] and [WP:BIO]. --TheMadTim 09:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3rd go : OK. This article fulfills the criteria for inclusion thusly: This series of sketches has been included on two commercially released DVDs, produced by the National Lampoons. The DVDs are available through mainstream distributors including Amazon [10] [11] There is no set wiki policies governing the inclusion of comedy sketch routines that I am aware of. The article can easily be made in accordance with WP:V. The fact that these sketches are commercially available would normally be accepted as sufficient evidence of noteability. To borrow from WP:NMG, "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" and "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" would all point towards this sketch having the requisite degree of noteability. WP:BIO states that "Notability can be determined by: A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. As this sketch is primarily an established commercial vehicle for a comedian and his publishers to make money, this would indicate that they are not doing this for fun, it is a profitable business which relies upon it's fan base. The movies are listed on imdb here : [12] and [13]. Imdb is listed on [14] as one way of showing noteability of a subject. The comedian who performs these sketches is well known as a live performer at Comedy Store. The subject satisfies WP:V and more than satisfies WP:GT. [15] states : An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). A look at the talk page of Amazing Racist shows a number of people visiting wikipedia looking for this information, but being unable to find it. Furthrmore, the same article states "If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: 1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance". --TheMadTim 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and amend to version shown on user:TheMadTim--TheMadTim 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Valid AFD, closed properly, no new evidence presented. I'm not convinced by Google hits, videoblogging trolls have a high cruft multiple. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. David | Talk 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure absent new and compelling evidence of notability. Unanimous AfD covered subject as well as article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• This is my first time editing and/or posting anything so if I screw it up don't get to mad.
  Back to the subect at hand- The Amazing Racist. When I saw this skit/video clip I thought it was definitely fake, but I came to wikipedia to find out the story behind it. Alas it was not here. Why not? Because it offended someone. I don't see why he can't have a reference page so when I tell people it is all a joke I can have a credible source. I have read others say it is not noteworthy enough to have a entry, let's be honest here, it is! People are lying through their teeth just because the don't want the article posted. And on the issue of obscurity there are much more obscure pages on wikipedia, Anyway I will end this with what someone else said about the issue and it is something I firmly believe, "Censoring the Amazing Racist is foolhardy and against the original mission of Wikipedia- to provide uncensored and factual data to all who request it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtmavs (talk • contribs)
  • Please sign your posts on this and other Talk pages by adding ~~~~ to the end of your comment.

• For your info, it was not deleted because "it offended someone" but because it fails to establish any encyclopaedic notability, as a single sketch by a single comedian. If you want to know the kind of sketch considered independently notable, see Dead Parrot. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Err dude, isn't that sketch only in there because Monty Python sketches have their own category? It's not in wikipedia 'independently', it's in because of it's authors.--TheMadTim 11:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is there - along with other Python sketches - because the sketch itself has achieved independent notability. Many thousands of people can quotye this and other Python sketches verbatim, and the recent bird 'flu epidemic was first seen in the UK in... a parrot! Which prompted even the BBC to mention the Python sketch. Another sketch gave us the generic name of junk email. Just zis Guy you know? 10:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not here to serve as a credible source, it must be based on credible sources. See WP:NOR. Also see WP:AGF, no-one is "lying through their teeth". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted due process was followed, no reason to overturn given. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Sam Blanning^(talk) --CTSWyneken[User talk:CTSWyneken|(talk)]] 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted Unanimously voted to delete in a valid AfD. There would have to be some very strong and verifiable evidence that circumstances have changed since the AfD to overturn it. The nominator's arguments haven't even come close to that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia to read the entry on the Amazing Racist only to find out it had been deleted. I see people here hiding behind talk of process instead of addressing the substance because they can't justify the deletion. For the first time, I'm disappointed in Wikipedia. Anharmyenone 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If anyone still believes that this article was deleted on notability grounds : [16].

"National Lampoon, best known for its "Animal House" and "Vacation" series, claims it reaches nearly 3.5 million college-age students with its books, audio CDs and videos like "Lost Reality 2."". Yup that's 3.5 million! Additionally, "A National Lampoon representative says the company has had an increase in sales partially due to the popularity of Shaffir's clip.It's actually meant to make fun of racist people," says National Lampoon's Noah, who declined to provide his last name."

To say that this is a non noteable work is, quite simply, staggering.

--TheMadTim 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

26 April 2006

Reverend and The Makers

The following text was written by the article's creater, and copied from User talk:JzG#Reverend and The Makers --Rob 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting this page. Reverend and the Makers are an up and coming British band, gaining quite some notoriety in the British music press and in online forums. Surely the very fact that the page has been recreated so many times is testement to their popularity?

Regarding Wikipedia's WP:NMG page - it states that; "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" - Reverend and the Makers have achieved the following criteria:

"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources." - they have toured nationally for years, and have recently been touring with Arctic Monkeys.

"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." - a number of interviews with the band can be found online and in music publications.

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - the band are a major proponent of what the NME call the 'New Yorkshire' scene - indeed, Wikipedia even has a New Yorkshire page, on which the Makers are already listed.

"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." - Their track, 'Heavyweight Champion of the World', is used by Sky TV's Soccer AM program when highlights of previous matches are shown.

Do you not think this is justifiable enough? They meet not 1, but 4 of Wikipedia's own criteria for inclusion. Captmonkey

• Overturn and list on AfD - I can't see the article content, so I'm going by what I do see above, and I ask it be undeleted, unless there's some reason I'm unaware of. JzG seemed to base the deletion on WP:NMG (see both user's talk pages). You can't speedy based on WP:NMG. That's not policy. A claim of notability needs to be made. If made, AFD should settle the question. It seems, even if there wasn't a claim of notability, the author could easily add one now. AFD will then settle whether it's sufficient and verifiable. --Rob 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD - According to the deletion log, this page was deleted for being non-notable and failing WP:NMG. Neither of these are CSD. (That said, this might be a case of WP:SNOW but I can't see the article to be sure.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I refer the hon. gentleman to criterion A7. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But that's not what's in the deletion log. It says non-notable, it should say "CSD A7". Non-notable is not always the same. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • A7 was in the original speedy tag, not copied into the summary field for some reason. But A7 says non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't know about this. The title of A7 appears to have changed recently. It used to be just "Unremarkable people or groups". Actually, I think the new title is somewhat misleading. (Since non-notability itself isn't a reason to speedy delete, but no claim of notability is.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Had there been a credible claim of notability I would have AfDd it per my usual practice. I may be a rouge admin but I am quite conservative when it comes to A7 applied to apparent bandcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 14:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and put up on AfD From what I've seen above, I think it would meet at least one criteria listed on WP:NMG. It may not, but without the article there, there's hardly a way of knowing. Darquis 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and put up on AfD based on the info given, if it checks out, this may be notable enough, and agree that this probably is not a CsD based on music related criteria. However if it (or a substantially similar article under a different name) was previously AfD'ed then it qualifies for CsD under recreation of previously deleted content... was that the case? ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, but relist only if those sources don't check out initially. The NME claim appears to check out, so...--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hi, I am the author of the offending page. I've been asked to cite sources for my claims above, so, here I am. I'm confused - it's a simple, non-offensive page about a band who are about to break through in the UK! Anyhow, to the points raised:
  1. "Have gone on tour" - [17] - here, buy tickets for their forthcoming National UK tour. Or, perhaps you've seen them on the current crazy sell out (tickets going for £200 on eBay) Arctic Monkeys tour as the support act? Here's a BBC review of a gig they did in February - [18] - they even say "This band (Reverend and the Makers) are the ones to watch".
  2. "Been written about online and offline" - Seriously, do a Google search - you'll turn up half a dozen interviews from different sites. The NME said this about them in a recent review, 'Trust us, before long you will worship at the altar of the Reverend. Hallelujah'.
  3. "Become a prominent representative of a notable style or local scene" - the existing, unmolested, Wikipedia article for the burgeoning New Yorkshire musical scene already lists them. The NME coined this term, and used the Makers as an example of one of the bands in the 'scene'. Think back to 'scenes' like Britpop and NWONW.
  4. "Has performed music for media that is notable" - I'll admit that this is a little tenous, but their track, "Heavyweight Champion Of The World" is being used by the Sky TV production, Soccer AM, as backing music to replays of the previous weeks football action. [19]

  Anyways, they're a band that are just on the cusp of good things - this is no garage band playing gigs in deserted pubs - they just played to several thousand people just last night in Hull. It's up to you guys! :) Captmonkey 19:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Regarding you statement "Seriously, do a Google search". Actually, when you make the article, you should have done that, and cited every single reliable source you could. Never assume people will look up missing information, outside the article. It's basically up to you to include relevant material. So, if/when the article is undeleted, be sure to include it. While anybody can do a google search, not all results are useful. Some are just promotional and self-written. It's really up to the article author, to pick out the high quality ones, and include them in the article. While I criticized the deletion of this article, I am certain, that if the article had the relevant information, it would never have been deleted. --Rob 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care overmuch, happy to have it listed on AfD. More effort seems to have gone into pleading the case than went into the article, which is always a bit frustrating. But do note again the comment made by the creator that the band are about to break through in the UK. That was how I read it, too. Bands which are "about to break through" very often don't. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete add the cites. Put on AfD if it still looks dodgy. They're not the only ones to leave the cites for later and get deleted in between. Perhaps the author should have read Wikipedia:Why should I care? first - an easy mistake to make. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Having spot-checked the deleted versions, this certainly seems to have qualified under speedy-delete criterion A7 since the article itself made no claim to notability that I found. Send it to AFD as a disputed speedy-deletion but I'm skeptical about its chances. Some real evidence will have to be presented that this is more than the garage band that the article made it seem. Remember that we don't cover bands that are about to break thru - we cover bands that have broken thru. Rossami (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, a number of criteria in WP:MUSIC are written specifically to include bands lacking mainstream commercial success. Notability<>fame+sales, necessarily. --Rob 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ...but there's no rush. I fully agree with you, but I think the "notability without commercial impact" thing needs to be evaluated by the good old fashioned "test of time". --kingboyk 07:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • "there's no rush" is not what a wiki is about (that's more of a Britanica approach). Also, the test we will evaluate the article by is WP:MUSIC, which, if the creator's claims can be substantiated, the article will pass. --Rob 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Disagree, sorry. There are differing opinions of what wiki is about. Being up-to-the-second up-to-date is not necessarily one of them. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Request: If admins wish to wait the full week before removing "protected deleted" status, can I suggest its undeleted immediately, but to a user-subpage of the creator. That way, he can fix it up properly (maybe get some feedback), before its put back in article space, hopefully avoiding the need for re-deletion. There's no point in AFD voters wasting their time evaluating the old version, if its going to be substantially changed shortly. --Rob 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• List at AFD (where I shall recommend Delete) As a popular music buff, I'm usually quite lenient on band articles. However, having the luxury of being able to look at the article, it's main claim to notability is that the band are touring as support to the currently very fashionable Arctic Monkeys. They don't even have a record deal. I think at a bare minimum a new band ought to have a record deal to be notable. (There are of course exceptions, such as when the members are already notable, or historical bands who became notable through later activities of their members or some other reasons.) --kingboyk 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Changed from keep deleted to relist. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is DRV, not AFD. So, the issue is whether the article qualified for a speedy under a7. A claim was made. If you contest it, you should take up the matter on an AFD. You said "it's main claim to notability is...". Hence, you have conceded the speedy was invalid, since you conceded a claim was made. The rest of your sentence will be relevant at the AFD. It is fundamentally wrong for admins to ignore policy, and remove content, without community consensus. --Rob 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, you got me on this one. I was thinking about this in bed last night (sad I know!) and I realised I'd snookered myself somewhat on this point. You're absolutely right. I wouldn't have speedy deleted it. I will therefore amend my recommendation. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. No need to relist as even the original version of the article indicates that the group passes WP:MUSIC by virtue of its verifiable national tour gigs. Those who have speedy-deleted this article in the past don't seem to have conducted any research (which would have confirmed the assertion of notability in the original article) but rather assumed that their own ignorance was an indication that the article should be deleted. Articles about bands should not in general be speedy deleted where they contain such assertions of notability, Nor should they be listed for deletion where, as in this case, research turns up evidence to confirm the assertion. The Reverend and his band have supported sellout gigs featuring the hugely popular Sheffield band Arctic Monkeys [20] (BBC) and have been confirmed as main support band for the Monkeys' upcoming tour [21] (NME), and you can buy tickets for some of their April-June gigs online through ticketweb. --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Why is this page still protected deleted? Even if the page warranted deletion under a7, it never should have been protected (especially with more then a month since the previous deletion). A core principal of Wikipedia is people can create articles immediately, *without* a prior bureaucratic approval process. Unless there is attack content, copyvio, or a strong AFD consensus that no article under the name should exist; protection should not be used in cases such as this. When using protection, one should always ask, what is so harmful that we need protection from. Many newbies confronted with such protection, will simply give up, and go away, which is quite unfortunate. If people want an encyclopedia they can't edit, they can go visit Britanica. --Rob 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• i have drawn it by myself using a common WP picture, pls undelete.--Nerd 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, images cannot be undeleted. I'm unsure whether a copy would be available from one of WP's many mirrors. Xoloz 16:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• If he still has a copy he can reupload it and properly tag it as self created perhaps. (General comment, I'm not familiar with the image nor have I checked the deletion history). --kingboyk 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

23 April 2006

Userboxes and Userbox

Those pages were deleted, as were their talk pages, and protected afterwards. The issue I have is that the redirects run in loops (in one case, at least, the talk page redirects to the main article) and the redirects really ought to be running to WP:Userbox and WP:Userboxes, since this is a Wikipedia specific term. Alternatively, we ought to be saying on Userbox that this is a Wikipedia specific term and then redirecting to WP:Userbox. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) This is not an undeletion request. This is a redirection request.

• This has been the subject of a recent DRV debate. I brought the odd result to closer Brenneman's attention, and he has said he would attend to it. For the record, I support the redirect to projectspace as reasonable. Xoloz 19:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all! WP:ASR wikipedia specific terms should not be in the main space at all, even as redirects (unless with the WP:xxx notation). We've had this discussion before I think, let's not do it again. Why can userboxes just go away and die somewhere? --Doc ^ask? 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I indicated above you, Doc, we have in fact had this discussion before. Since redirects are cheap and for convenience's sake, one wonders why anyone would spend anytime arguing against any even remotely useful ones. Xoloz 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Because, I don't think we should allow redirects from article to project space unless prefixed with 'WP'. I know there are others, but I would vote to delete them too. (And, in any case, userboxes are not 'remotely useful'. --Doc ^ask? 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, there are hundreds of others, many of which receive a huge amount of use every single day. Where would we be without NPOV? Your revolutionary proposal for mass-deleting well-established, useful, and harmless redirects should be formally proposed with a new policy if you want it to ever happen, not just assumed on a whim without any consensus support. And if it's userboxes that you don't think are useful, you should be voting to delete Wikipedia:Userboxes, not the redirects to that page. Once the userboxes page is deleted, deleting the redirects will be a natural side-effect. Why be sneaky about it? -Silence 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• On the one hand this was a work-to-order where I did nothing beyond the minimum required. On the other hand, the current state makes no sense but I'd felt it was a harmless enough glitch that it could wait until I archived my talk page and cleaned up everything else I'd forgotten to do. On the third hand I was hoping that by that time no-one would care about userboxes and that everyone would be arguing about if the onion tied to one's belt should be purple or brown. - brenneman^{L} 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's easier for users that was. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Purple, 'cause it's prettier!!! Xoloz 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per WP:ASR --pgk^(talk) 06:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, WP:ASR is not a speedy deletion criterion. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on RFD. Process is important. "Cross-namespace redirect" and WP:ASR are not speedy deletion criteria. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. They already went through RfD, as I recall, and were deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Let's try to keep this project focused and article namespace reasonably clear. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Shouldn't be in article space. David | Talk 13:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted, as further debate would be inconclusive, and it was previously deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted- cross-namespace redirects are NOT to be kept. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per it's easier to get to the userboxes if they are. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• There indeed was a Review on this recently; like Xoloz I am a bit surprised it was closed the way it was. Some remarks:
  1. Cross-namespace redirects on WP are not only allowed, some are encouraged. Every WP: and WT: -style redirect sits in the Main space and points to a page in the Wikipedia space. These are usually non-controversial. The governing guideline is Wikipedia:Shortcut.
  2. There are also a smaller number of Main→WP redirects which are not of the WP: -style. Examples are NPOV, Wikipedia is not paper, Disambiguation, No personal attacks, Assume good faith, ArbCom, and CotW. There seems to be some disagreement about them; Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Precedents#Should redirects to other spaces be kept? suggests that their suitability be determined on a case-by-case basis.
  3. Bearing in mind the general trend to keep redirects to high-traffic WP space pages, especially those known by a particular catch phrase or term, it may not be unreasonable to keep, say, one page as a redirect; perhaps Userboxes→Wikipedia:Userboxes. I do not think having all sorts of variations is either needed or desirable.
  4. Related matters: a) original RfDs here b) an aside: the comment above that cross-space redirects are never speedy candidates is untrue—Main→User space redirects are speedy candidates (R2).

Whatever the outcome of this review, I do hope that no one relists this yet once more: it's been discussed way more than any such triviality has any right to be discussed. Please respect whatever consensus forms here. —Encephalon 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete as redirect. (And list at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if anyone seriously thinks this should be deleted, since speedy-deletion is obviously inappropriate policy abuse regardless.) This is a very useful and practical redirect to have, much like CotW and the countless other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia editor projects and activities, and there's next to no possibility of it being searched for by someone looking for something other than the Wikipedia project, since "userbox" is not a common word, phrase, or abbreviation (unlike the vast majority of other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia, like disambiguation, a real word, NPOV, a valid abbreviation, and assume good faith, a not-uncommon phrase). Moreover, it's truly hilarious to invoke WP:ASR as evidence for cross-namespace redirects being unacceptable, considering that "WP:ASR" is itself a cross-namespace redirect!! ("WP:" is technically part of the article namespace, not the Wikipedia namespace, but is tolerated as a matter of convenience.) Furthermore, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references itself makes no mention of redirects of this sort being a bad thing, and, for the final nail in the coffin, here is a list of cross-namespace redirects which point to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: Mention of Wikipedia in articles, Avoid self-references, WP:NSR, Avoid self-reference, WP:SELF, Avoid self references, Avoid self reference, WP:ASR. :) And if that wasn't enough, here's a list of cross-namespace redirects to this very page, Wikipedia:Deletion review: WP:VFU, WP:VfU, Votes for undeletion, VfU, WP:RFU, WP:DRV, Deletion Review, WP:Deletion Review, VFU. This deletion is a farce, completely unjustifiable by any policy, guideline, convention, or purpose beneficial to Wikipedia, and should be reversed for the same reasons a deletion of ArbCom or WP:V would be. -Silence 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Hardly notable enough to be even mentioned anywhere in the main space. --InShaneee 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Er, are you aware that these were redirects, not articles? Countless quasi-noteworthy Wikipedia projects have cross-namespace redirects; their point is not to assert notability, but to provide a useful shortcut for users who aren't willing or able to type out lengthy titles like "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" (NPOV) and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones" (WP:TROP). -Silence 01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - This is absolutely stupid. The only acceptable cross namespace redirects in mainspace begin with WP:, period. This is merely a matter of convenience. And guess what, there already is a WP:UBX. It's simple common sense; we have to keep the encyclopedic content and the non-encyclopedic project content separate. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no particular opinion in this debate but your absolutist statement about cross-namespace redirects is untrue. NPOV and be bold are among our oldest such redirects. Those (and probably many others) are not considered at all controversial and would require a considerable amount of pointless work to change. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Cyde is demonstrating nothing here but his lack of knowledge of how cross-namespace redirects work, and always have worked, in Wikipedia. Literally hundreds of such pages exist for just about every popular Wikipedia: page in existence, including both tangential WikiProjects and side-projects and central, high-usage policy and guideline pages. Such redirects are not only allowed, but encouraged. This speedy-deletion is hilariously out-of-process and hypocritical; there is no substantial difference between WP: redirects and other types of redirects, and the "WP:" designation is nothing but a matter of convention to make it easier to remember shortcuts from the article space to the "Wikipedia:" space. -Silence 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect As per Encephalon, Silence and Xoloz Darquis 08:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Global_Resource_Bank_Initiative

Come on whats wrong with this article? I have started work on Wikipedia recently and am a big fan as a user. Would like to get more involved (and will be, belive me) tried to put down this article after a original article about GRB which had been on Wiki for many years (not written by me) was deleted some time ago. Yes that article was to be improved I agree but not deleted? And this one is totally correct and usefull for Wiki users I belive...It looks like the delete maffia is destroing the core idea that articles should have a chance to develop if they are not totally illegal, nonsens or spam.

11:17, 22 April 2006 Redvers deleted "Global Resource Bank Initiative" (CSD-G4 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank)

• Undelete. Put it back on, its good info...--Swedenborg 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I was the one who tagged it as a CSD-G4 with the added bonus of "admin, please check previous version for clear G4" which I'd have to assume meant it matched.  RasputinAXP  c 13:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to AfD. There has been additions to the article since it was last AfDed that make it worthy of a second hearing, the version as it was prior to the AfD is here. It was previously deleted as original research/vanity, and I haven't checked any of the additional information to see if it has the same problems, but I don't think it will harm to spend another week at AfD. Thryduulf 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That version looks to be identical to the one reposted.  RasputinAXP  c 21:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Changes made to this article (which is being constantly reposted under various titles by User:Swedenborg) haven't altered the fundamental reasons it was originally deleted for: original research and vanity. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf. If he can make out a sufficient, anyone at AfD might; that provides basis for a re-evaluation in itself. Xoloz 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf and Xoloz. JoshuaZ 16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. What additions? There's a lot of vague assertions that "people have been talking about something like this", but no evidence whatsoever that anyone has paid any attention to these people. Valid G4, why should AfD have to waste time on it again? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A little bit of paraphrasing and other forms of hand waving do not address the core problem identified by the AfD of the article being original research. Come back when some reliable sources can be provided for the material. --Allen3 ^talk 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid G4 and valid (though low-participation) original AfD which correctly identified the Original Research problem with this article. David | Talk 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Fight the "delete maffia"!--TheMadTim 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

22 April 2006

Simon Strelchik

• First - Keep.
• Second - Keep, by default.
• Third - Speedy Delete.

There has never been an AFD that showed consensus to delete this article and I'm not seeing a CSD that this falls under. I suggest that it should be merged into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Kotepho 04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me like it's a bad idea to delete something because it's a vandal target, but at the same time I understand that the presence of a bunch of POV pushers can make a proper AFD very difficult. Restore and merge seems like a very reasonable solution based on the AFDs, so I'll go with it.-Polotet 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• The second AfD was so thoroughly sock infested that any meaningful outcome was impossible. I wouldn't object to a temporary undeletion to allow a merge with Simon Strelchik becoming a redirect (I fear it will need to be protected). Thryduulf 11:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should clarify that I support Curps' actions fully, imho they are a good example of a good application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion endorsed The VaunghWatch people are a known group of vigorous POV-promoters. Any debate clean of sockpuppets has supported the deletion of similar material (there have been at least two relatively clean discussions of such content at DRV.) While not ideally-in-process, Curps action was in response to DRV precedent and reached the right result on the merits in a case where process was being deliberately undermined by a specific faction. I will support Curps' administrative discretion in this case. Xoloz 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and Merge as suggested. Numerous precedents. David | Talk 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary restore and merge per Thryduulf. I think the consensus among non-sockpuppets in the 2nd AfD (the last one with any real debate) was for merging, but given the propensity for abuse by the huge sockfarm I think leaving the history around once the merge is done will just invite endless reverts. I volunteer to perform the merge; I have no particular view pro or con Simon Strelchik and I've become familiar with the topic by now, so if it's restored, someone please let me know and I'll start merging it. Mangojuice 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, last AfD was a sockfest and my attempt to have a proper AfD was disrupted (along with the entire AfD process, thanks to the use of a miusconfigured open proxy) by a sock of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curps did the Right Thing. Just zis Guy you know? 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain this reasoning? If someone AFDs George Bush and Squidward wants to have fun with the debate we will just speedy George Bush? Kotepho 20:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, because unlike the subject of this article George Bush has succeeded in being elected to a significant office, and the article is edited by many people with no history of sockpuppet usage. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary Restore/Merge Merge with New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election , but delete the history, or the sock puppetry will get revert happy again.Darquis 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The second AFD was a sockpuppet fest -- of PROVEN sockpuppets. Kill it dead. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Calton. Ardenn 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete First AfD seems clear and relatively sockfree; and that was in March. I don't think many things are WP:POINT, but the other two nominations seem to be. Maybe it should be merged, but that decision I'll take when I can see it. Septentrionalis 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Failed candidates generally do not get their own articles, and the one claim of independent notability was not verified. Note that VaughanWatch is up to 52 sockpuppets so far, and has deteriorated into mostly making personal attacks on user talk pages. I can see no reason why Simon Strelchik should not be listed in New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and have no opinion on the best way to achieve that outcome. Thatcher131 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Besides the substantive issue of notability, which I believe attaches to major party candidates for Federal office in Canada, I am very suspicious of rapid multiple AfD nominations (WP:POINT is relevant here) followed by a speedy deletion despite very obvious lack of consensus. The votes and comments in the first and third AfDs typically showed reasoning and did not look like typical rapid, vote with no comment type puppetfests. Allegations that the discussions were invalid due to sockpuppet invasion need to be proven (e.g., CheckUser and similar tools). I don't believe there has even been a consensus to delete this or other major party candidate articles. MCB 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Checkuser was used; VaughanWatch has 52 known sockpuppets and many of them were involved in this AFD. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If checkuser was used, WHY was I banned? I have nothing to do with all this. And I looked at checkuser and I didn't see my name once. I'm really ticked off that I worked really hard on my wikipedia edits and then you banned me. Gsinclair 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete, agree with MCB. Gsinclair 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• As I said in the original debates, the current consensus on unelected candidates is to merge them into a single party list, because that's the best way anybody's found so far to balance the competing interpretations of notability. If VaughanWatch's known socks are discounted in this case, the consensus was clearly in favour of doing that, but it's also clear that the VaughanWatch sockpuppets aren't going to let this have an honest, undisrupted AFD (cf. Elliott Frankl, where even after a merge consensus was established they simply ignored it.) And while the merge solution isn't ideal, until we can figure out a better consensus position we're kind of stuck with it. My primary vote every time has been merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; I still stand by that. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• What you said was "Either keep or merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal". Gsinclair 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note I recounted the first AfD, discarding the IP from Bell Canada and 2 of the 3 VaughanWatch socks. That leaves us with 5 keep, 2 merge and 3 delete. However, 2 of the keeps were predicated on being able to verify that he was a founding member of Save the children; IIRC, this was never established per WP:RS, so those votes change to merge; plus one of the keep votes changed to delete in the second AfD. That gives 2 keep, 4 merge and 4 delete. Thatcher131 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment You guys have gone too far. People are afraid to make edits to this deletion review now, not to mention the other related articles, because everybody ends up banned. As Simon_Cursitor puts it, "the attitude appears to be that, no matter how many edits you have made, the criterion for blocking is whether or not your view agrees with that of the Cabal". Look at my talk page. You should unban the people that are not proven sockpuppets and have an open debate. Gsinclair 09:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't gotten involved here, and for obvious reasons, but this is simply too rich. It is impossible to have an "open debate" on anything related to this Vaughan stuff because as soon as you allow for one, you get 52 socks popping up accusing actual editors of being socks and generally disrupting the operation of this service. All you need to do Gsinclair is take a look at some of these AfD's, for Strelchik, for Frankl and so on and you'll see what I mean. We tried, since January, to make things work, only to be taken advantage of by the VaughanWatch Gang. - pm_shef 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• This figure of "52 socks" is entirely made up. And within this figure includes my login and many other people. I looked on checkuser and nowhere does it say this figure. What has happened is that you have taken one vandal, and painted everyone else with the same brush. Gsinclair 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Joe says in the second AfD that his being a founder of Free the Children (NOT Save the Children) is cited by the Canadian Jewish News and by the CBC. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The two references are somewhat unreliable:

1) The Canadian Jewish News article is essentially interviews of three candidates -- want to bet that their information comes courtesy of the candidates themselves?

2) The CBC ref is a candidates' information page, and I'd bet folding money all the information in it was supplied by the candidates. Certainly the photos of Strelchik and Kadis used in both articles are identical (Maybe Reale sprung for the quantity discount at the photographer's). --Calton | Talk 07:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Calton should know what WP:V says: ""Verifiability" does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. GSinclair 08:12 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• 'Also I looked at the Checkuser page, and some of the people labelled sockpuppets weren't actually found by checkuser to be such. This includes CasanovaAlive and Munckin. I count 9 Keeps therefore, check the page yourself here. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  They don't care, they block anyone that they don't like or that votes the wrong way. Gsinclair 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• This user is a confirmed sock puppet of VaughanWatch, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely.

• Who's unsigned comment is this above? I'm not a "confirmed sock puppet", nobody even asked me. I'm guessing the same thing happened to some of these other people. I looked at checkuser and you had like 8 people or so found as sockpuppets, some of them in the list below, but then you banned everybody that wasn't on wikipedia for like 2 years. You should unblock them, so maybe they can say something in this debate. Gsinclair 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Blink484 (talk · contribs)
• Aufbauten (talk · contribs)
• Leotardo (talk · contribs)
• Macredi (talk · contribs)
• Slendidlydelicious (talk · contribs)
• UndergroundRailroad (talk · contribs)
• Moonslight (talk · contribs)
• GoldRhymer (talk · contribs)

• And of the ones you claim not to be sockpuppets:

• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs) - Indefinitely blocked: Nineteen edits total, all related to the VaughnMess
• Munckin (talk · contribs) -Indefinitely blocked: Caught using a misconfigured open proxy while trying to expunge the third Strelchik AFD from the AFD page [22]. One of the reports on him included this warning

• If you look at the accounts Mackensen blocked through his log, you will see that VaughanWatch's socks tend to have 50-100 edits (mostly minor copyedits) all on the same day, then they go dormant until they start posting on Simon Strelchik AfDs or other Vaughan issues. Munchkin looks very much the same. Thatcher131 11:16, 21 April 2006 Hmm, that behavior pattern looks familiar.

• So they make a lot of edits, that means they're the enemy? You guys need to get a life. Gsinclair 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't imagine why anyone would think they were among the 50+ sockpuppets of VaughnWatch. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment You can't even spell it correctly. There are people banned all over, and yet you're so sure of it all. Look what somebody wrote on my page: "For obvious reasons, to do with not being blocked, I am unable to help you. You will, however, note on my own Talk page that the attitude appears to be that, no matter how many edits you have made, the criterion for blocking is whether or not your view agrees with that of the Cabal." Gsinclair 09:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Many people primarily voted Keep in the AfD:

• Samaritan (talk · contribs)
• Brisvegas (talk · contribs)
• Bearcat (talk · contribs)
• Hyperbole (talk · contribs)
• Luigizanasi (talk · contribs)
• MCB (talk · contribs)
• NDP Johnny (talk · contribs)
• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs)
• Munckin (talk · contribs)
• VaughanWatch (talk · contribs)

GSinclair 08:12 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm, 2 sockpuppets and their sockpuppeteer -- already pointed out -- are on that list, provided by a brand-new user with eight edits. Say, isn't one of the definitions of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? --Calton | Talk 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• You just call everybody a sockpuppet, don't you? But do you have any proof of that? No. I checked each of those, and none of them were sockpuppets. And none were found out to be by checkuser. Gsinclair 09:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Further note: NDP Johnny (talk · contribs) was at the time a new user, who was solicited to vote on the 2nd AfD by yet another VaughnWatch sockpuppet (VWSP) CanadianElection (talk · contribs) [23]. I noticed this because GSinclair 5th and 7th edits were a solicitation to vote here, made directly under the note by the VWSP.
• Son, the general rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Just some advice. --Calton | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't be a bully. Gsinclair 09:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• In the block above you have, I think, conclusive proof of why Curps was right. There is simply no chance of discussing this objectively due to VaughanWatch's determination to keep this article (maybe VaughanWatch is Strelchik, who knows?) and above all his contempt for Wikipedia. This is beyond farce and well into "screw you". Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• VaughanWatch is the name of a website which publishes partisan views on local politics in Vaughan; Strelchik appears to be one of VW's endorsed candidates, but he's not directly involved in the site AFAIK. Most of us following this matter have been operating from the assumption that VaughanWatch and his socks were Paul DeBuono, the president of the organization, and not Strelchik himself. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're also misrepresenting my vote; I pretty consistently communicated each time that my preference was to merge into a party candidates list, per the existing precedent on unelected Canadian political candidates. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• You communicated "Either keep or merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal". Gsinclair 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete It was obviously inappropriate for user:JzG to rule Speedy Keep on an article that he nominated for deletion, without any discussion on the AfD outside of his own contributions. The AfD was up for a only a little over an hour, and had already survived 2 AfDs. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit was less than an hour ago, at 02:48. Thirty edits, with the first 29 a series of minor, rapid-fire, and occasionally self-reverting edits. I find this a wee bit suspicious. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no stake in this. Just count the Keep votes, that's what I did. Doublesuede 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Uh huh. Less than an hour here, and you zeroed straight in on this issue, did all the research, and found exactly the right place to post your utterly unbiased results. Right. Of course. Oh, and to correct your statement, one of the AfD's this article "survived" is the one whose integrity we are discussing right now. Rhetoric teachers, we now have GFPL-licensed example of "Begging the question" for you, available right here. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User blocked indefinitely as a Vaughan sock. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Immediately semi-protect the AFD and the article. I can't make any sense of above arguements. Vandalism and sockpuppets are never a reason for deletion. --Rob 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is, however, a valid concern about a legitimate discussion taking place. The level of sockpuppetry is almost unbelievable. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion As if three afds weren't enough. At least some of the sockpuppets have been shut down. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Guys this article should be here, i'm surprised it isn't. It survived two keep votes in like two months, and then gets killed after a debate that lasts 1 hour and 15 minutes with only one person commenting. GoinHome 10:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. A separate article is not necessary, but the content is useful on that page and a speedy deletion was out of order. A redirect is certainly necessary. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 @ 20:25 UTC
• Comment I agree that the speedy deletion was out of order, for the first and second AfD voted to Keep. The solution though is to follow the consensus and relist. GoinHome 11:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

21 April 2006

Category:User kon

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_27#Template:User_kon

and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_26#Category:User_kon

Although the Tfd pointed to the Cfd and vice versa the outcome was inconsistent, template kept, category deleted. Template:User kon(edit talk links history) has now more users, and maybe Template:Catfd(edit talk links history) can help to avoid further conflicts with WP:CDP section 3. -- Omniplex 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and restore. Makes sense to have a category linked to by a template that was kept in a debate. Fetofs ^Hello! 22:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn a category that is fed by a template shouldn't be deleted like that unless the template is also deleted. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and restore. I'm the creator of the mentioned category and template. --minghong

SilentHeroes

See AfD debate here

Update: The AfD-debate above is not of any value since it's NOT regarding the page in question. It's regarding an old version of the page that for instance I didn't submit.

This page was deleted even though the new page was a complete new setup and was NOT the original one brought back. If a page is deleted, how can ever a proper page be added at that address if admins keeps deleting and protecting the new, proper, page?

The page contained a full range of info, screenshots and misc about the mod SilentHeroes. Several other mods, with much worse pages, are being keeped, but this one is continiusly attacked. It's not enough one editor wrote 'Death to Sweden' as the original Delete-message? Very bad taste and wikipedia should be above this kind of behavior.Zarkow 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, policy was followed here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore, the new article is enough to merit at least a relist. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, policy wasn't followed. I'm sorry, but you are confused, and I understand why. The page above is refering to the OLD page, NOT the NEW page. They are COMPLETELY different. Is there any rules against adding new pages with valuable content after a (in editors taste) a lacking page was deleted? If so, how can ever a page be added (submitted) after a deletion? Zarkow 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Old page? New page? Sorry, I think I am a bit confused then. Looking through the deletion log, I see one deletion. What is this second page you refer to? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OH, I see the issue now. Sorry, I was thinking that the AfD above referred to this deleted page. Sorry about that, I didn't notice that pesky space. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist it wasn't CSD G4. --Eivind^t@c 09:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist if we must, but in my view no mod is actually notable - and certianly not to the extent of this large an article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I thank you for your support, but regarding your wish not to list any mods at all: mods both extent the original game and in some cases superseeds the original game in size and or popularity. Don't forget that CounterStrike is still a mod to Half Life. Zarkow 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think you'll find that I woudl consider the encyclopaedia improved without either of those ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Relist Some third-party mods are notable (for example GMod for Half-Life 1/2 and Red Orchestra (game mod), although not entirely sure about this one) and it does deserve a second chance. Sasquatch t|c 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Sasquatch. There are, apparently, around 10,000 people playing this mod, and more than 11,000 Google hits indicate a certain threshold of notability. At the very least let's see what the proposed page is so we can judge for ourselves.Captainktainer 09:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

20 April 2006

Cool (African philosophy)

The AFD (found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cool (African philosophy)) was closed by Mailer Diablo as "uhhhhh...no consensus". After reviewing the discussion, I would have closed this as a delete (with a slight merge into Cool (aesthetic)), as the 19 editors who actually cited Wikipedia rules (it's an acknowledged POV fork, it's basically unverified, it's original research) agreed, with the reasons to keep consisting of 2 unfounded and rude speedy keep votes accusing the nominator of bad faith (no actual reason to keep the article), and 4 other fairly unconvincing keep votes (in order: creator of the article, someone who doesn't really get WP:NOR or WP:V, one with no actual reason to keep (just an attempt to defend the two who voted speedy keep), and one that states "worthy of an article", but doesn't say why). Oh, and a joke vote from an anon that says "Such a delightful example of very impressive and quite meaningless gobbledegook should not be lost to mankind".

I would have deleted this, and I think it really should have been closed as such. I'd like to suggest overturn the original 'no consensus' decision and delete. Proto||type 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Can I suggest it's pointless running this debate separately from the below debate about African Aesthetic? David | Talk 12:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Am I being dim or isn't this a different article that POV forked its way from the one you mentioned? Proto||type 12:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Same article, different article, merged article or whatever, it's essentially the same debate. David | Talk 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I believe it's useful to discuss this Afd closure, here. It's related, but really a seperate issue. I personally don't agree with closing it as a "no consensus"- consensus was clear that this should not be a seperate article. However, as one involved in the discussion, I realize I'm not neutral on this issue. I'd like people's inputs on whether there is something there other than a "no consensus". Friday (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• PS. My "vote" is overturn and redirect or (less good) delete. Friday (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Consensus was there and clear. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Proto. The balance of substantive discussion was that this article is straight original research; removing the unsourced text leaves an empty article. It is an acknowledged POV fork, and the only bit worth keeping is the intro, which could go in BJAODN. I can't say I blame Stifle, mind, since the debate was a mess. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure I'm going to assume, in closer's favor, that he found reason to discount several delete votes. My perception of this request is also altered by its having arisen in response to the related one below. Xoloz 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD may not be a vote but there was clearly no consensus to delete. If in doubt, don't delete. We should rightly be reluctant to throw out the good faith opinions of editors on the grounds that they did not cite a particular rule to justify their decision. David | Talk 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe the closer was discounting delete votes for some reason, but we cannot tell this from looking at how it was closed. In tricky cases, I'd really prefer people to explain their reasoning as best they can. Also, due to specific implementation details of the MediaWiki software, deleting and redirecting aren't technically the same thing. This should not mean that we always count delete and merge votes differently - here the reasons given by the merge crowd and the delete crowd had some overlap. I myself am a fence-sitter on the merge/delete issue - ideally, I want the history to be kept in case there's merging to be done. (I already attempted some merging) The thing there was clearly no consensus for was this continuing to be an independant article, and it would be a shame to close it by keeping it seperate. Friday (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, of course. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There were also the ones who wanted this merged, and unless they say otherwise they count against deletion. This was a messy AFD, and a "no consensus" closure does seem within reasonable bounds. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Computerjoe's talk 07:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete based on WP:V and WP:RS issues. FCYTravis 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Guettarda 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure because I think the "no consensus" finding is pretty reasonable, and because I think there should be a much higher standard to overturn a "no consensus" or "keep" decision than to overturn a deletion.Cheapestcostavoider 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Proto and JzG. I should say that I disagree with Cheapestcostavoider; I think deletion review ought only to bear out what the community thinks ought to have been the disposition of a given AfD (in view of the comments already made at the AfD page), irrespective of what decision the community contemplates overturning and irrespective of the discretion of the closing admin (that is, except in such cases as DRV is unclear, the decision of the original closing admin ought to be wholly discounted). Dbiv, inter al., is certainly correct that our presumption is generally toward "keep", and that we ougntn't to discount "keep" "votes" that raise valid arguments but fail to include an otherwise pro forma WP:XYZ reference, but I think that it is eminently clear that the "delete" position is supported, in any event, by stronger reasoning. I do think a "no consensus" closure seems reasonable (and I'd expressed prior to the close of the AfD that I was altogether happy not to have to be the one to sort through the mess), and, so, were the standard of review abuse of discretion, for example, I would endorse closure. It is my belief that DRV ought to constitute a de novo review (not of the actual deletion question, in most cases, but only of the proper adjudgment to have been made apropos of the consensus developed in response to that question), and so I think it is appropriate for us to conclude that "delete" was in order here. Joe 03:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that you believe DRV should involve itself in de novo review, but ample precedent provides that this is not what we are here to do. DRV is not to be used to reargue a deletion debate. Xoloz 17:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the deletion review should absolutely be conducted under an abuse of discretion/clearly erroneous standard for decisions to keep with deletions reviewed de novo. As I've said in the past, this would allow for a decision to be overturned where the administrator did something like overlook a demonstrated copyvio or ignored a unanimous consensus in favor of deletion. Otherwise the presumption in favor of keeping an article means little to nothing and we may as well let people re-nominate articles immediately after closure, which would obviously be a terrible policy. You should only get one bite at the apple for deletion.Cheapestcostavoider 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment With respect to Xoloz's comment, I intended to make clear that I do not believe DRV should recapitulate and open anew the deletion debate; it should open anew how properly the deletion ought to have been closed (perhaps a distinction without a difference, but I think not). We should review the initial AfD in order to determine what consensus, if any, had developed, irrespective of the decision of the closing admin (although Cheapest certainly raises valid arguments in favor of the contrary position; in the end, I think our assumptions of good faith must lead us to believe that DRV would not be abused in the fashion of which Cheapest writes, though certainly this may be pie-in-the-sky thinking on my part). Joe 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Joe's argument here is much better than Xoloz's, for practical reasons. If we don't use DRV to try to find the best answer to an afd, it's not very useful. The "no consensus" is not unreasonable- it's definitely the easiest answer. But, the question here is, can we do better? Can we analyze more carefully and find a better answer? By saying DRV is only about blatant mistakes in closing, we're not doing the best we can for our content. By placing a high burden to changing an Afd closure, we're making the whole system far more random than it ought to be. We're basically saying, whichever admin happens to come along at the right time and close the debate gets far more weight to their opinion than to anyone else's. I fail to see how anyone could argue that this randomness is a good thing compared to closure by consensus of multiple editors. In this case, it may not matter- this DRV looks like a "no consensus". But as a matter of principle, I do not believe for a second that the opinion of the person who happened to close the Afd should get more weight than anyone else's. Friday (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure christ this is turning into a fucking clown parade. - FrancisTyers 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm. The closest thing I see here to clowning are unhelpful comments like yours. Is there any meaning we can glean from your remark? My best guess is that you appear to be saying "This is complicated and time-consuming, let's not bother with it." If that's how you feel, fine, nobody's making you participate in the deletion review. But why make disparaging remarks about people who think there might be a better answer here than just slapping on a "no consensus"? Friday (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  I find Francis Tyers' comments more enlightening than Zoe's somewhat glib "of course" comment accompanying her vote -- as though it's a no-brainer, when, clearly, the votes thus far indicate otherwise. "Clown parade" in my book in the sense that the "African philosophy" "African aesthetic" DRs on this page are because a group of editors decided to make a mockery of the AfD process and Wiki procedures, completely circumventing both to accomplish illegal obliterations of two articles and, in the second case, making the title of one a redirect to a wholly inappropriate subject. The result is a title related to a complex aspect of traditional African cultural values redirects the reader to an article on Western pop culture. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. From the look of things (including the vote so far, which seems to support FT's view), I'd say his assessment is certainly closer to the mark. deeceevoice 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I almost wrote, "At this point who cares?" But I've come to believe this is an important matter on procedural grounds. The precipitous deletion of this article by User: Zoe -- just as in the case of "African aesthetic" -- should not be upheld. It was accomplished without discussion or proper process, in defiance an AfD finding. Admins should not be encouraged to do as Zoe has done -- defy the official result of an AfD, going on to delete the contents of the page -- and then, in this case, making it a redirect to a wholly inappropriate article. Bad business that. Endorse closure. Deeceevoice 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Deeceevoice, I don't understand - you want Cool (African philosophy) and African aesthetic to both be kept, as separate articles? I can't agree with doing anything on purely procedural grounds - procedures exist to serve the goal of writing an encyclopedia, not to supersede it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. The article should not have been deleted, and it certainly should not have been merged with "Cool (aesthetic)." Ideally, IMO, the article text should be merged with "African aesthetic," once the undelete is accomplished. It certainly has no business being merged with an article on Western pop culture. deeceevoice 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So, if it should be merged "once the undelete is accomplished," why not skip the undelete, and just merge the text? Do you just need a copy of it? I don't care at all about what should have happened, only about where we go from here. Let's not stand on ceremony. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• We already know for sure that the deletion of this by Zoe is not going to stand, no matter how the DRV comes out. That's a done deal. Shortly after she deleted it, I asked her to undelete, and she did, remember? Bringing up what you see as past wrongdoings isn't helpful to us moving forward. Friday (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  Zoe may have undeleted the article, but it is still blanked. Further, it continues as a redirect to "Cool (aesthetic)." Nothing whatsoever has been done to correct that egregious act. deeceevoice 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  The redirect is not a matter to discuss here. It's being discussed on the talk page. Friday (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete (1) Out of 29 votes, only 6 voted for "keep". (2)Article is a POV fork & original research (3) There is no need to keep two articles with the same content. Deeceevoice admitted that she already created African aesthetic with the informations from Cool (African philosophy) "The information from "Cool (African philosophy)" is now it in its proper context, in an article on dealing with the underlying cultural ethos of many traditional African societies. ... Further, I intend to use additional information from this article (in addition to the material that was gutted from it) to continue build the framework for "African aesthetic." (Deeceevoice) [24] CoYep 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I could not make heads or tails of this AFD debate. It was refactored, discussed on the article's talk page, the talk page of the AFD. Deeceevoice was arguing for merging then for keeping. If the content is going to be in African aesthetic we should at least keep the history (redirect/history merge). Kotepho 01:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Lots of confusion and acrimonious discussion on this one here, at the AfD, and on the talk page. A fairly large number of people who seem extraordinarily virulent about wanting to delete this. This is exactly what a no consensus keep-by-default AfD conclusion should be. Flag it with a tag if you think it needs one, let things quiet down, edit it as need be, and revisit in some months once everyone is calm again. Whatever good encyclopaedic content there is (and I have not read it in enough detail to have an opinion on that), let's give it a chance and let's see what it leads to. There is no need to rush. Martinp 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC), who voted No-consensus-keep, which I guess is one of the so-called "unconvincing" keep votes that Proto refers to.
• Endorse closure JoshuaZ 02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Proto et al. Tasteless Humor Comment (no extra charge): Does FrancisTyers' comment above mean that clowns having sex while on parade in Africa would be cool? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure noting of course that there's nothing to stop anyone performing a merge if they can obtain consensus to do so. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Can I just point out that there is no content other than a redirect in the history of this article. We're arguing about an empty URL. All the content has been moved, not cut-and-pasted, but moved, history and all, to Cool (African aesthetic). It happened on April 17, before this discussion began. So... we're actually discussing what to do with that article, or what are we actually discussing here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is a remnant of a very messy series of creations, recreations, deletions, moves, and redirects. The important thing is that the content is now at African aesthetic, having been duly restored following a recent Review. Cool (African philosophy) is currently a (recreated) redirect to African aesthetic; it was previously a redirect to Cool (African aesthetic), which is a page that was created when the content of Cool (African philosophy) was moved there. Cool (African aesthetic) is itself now a redirect, to Cool (aesthetic), which is a page with different content than the text here under dispute. I propose the following:
  • Delete Cool (African philosophy), for the following reasons: 1. It is a poor redirect, as no one searching for the content at African aesthetic is likely to type into the search box "Cool_(African philosophy)". 2. The history of the page relevant to the content at African aesthetic is not anymore at Cool (African philosophy) but at Cool (African aesthetic), where it had earlier been moved. The only history at Cool (African philosophy) is the revert war over which way the page should redirect. This is only important if the redirect itself is preserved; it is of no consequence if the page is deleted. There is no GFDL textual content of any kind anymore in the logs of Cool (African philosophy), and therefore absolutely nothing in Cool (African philosophy) that could be merged into African aesthetic (or, for that matter, that could possibly be merged into any other page). I must wonder whether the few individuals above who speak of merges from this page have actually read it. What is mergeworthy from here?
  • Redirect Cool (African aesthetic) to African aesthetic. The history preserved in the former is the early version of the text now at the latter (the latter does not record that because it seems to be a copy paste of one version of the text done during the deletion/recreation circus). Cool (aesthetic) is a different article. The sole use of Cool (African aesthetic) is as a placeholder for the history logs containing GFDL text now found at African aesthetic. Regards —Encephalon 20:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC) NB. I wrote this, and could have sworn seeing it posted, some 20 hours ago.
• Good idea, Encephalon. Of course, at that point, there's no reason not to do a history merge, and get the whole history over at African aesthetic. I'm willing to do the legwork if we can agree that's the solution. It certainly makes sense to me to decide which two articles are going to exist, get the histories there, and make everything else either a redirect or gone. I recommend delete Cool (African philosophy) (in all its no-content, no-history glory), merge history from Cool (African aesthetic) to African aesthetic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 May

1. Automobile manufaturers categories Sent back to CFD. 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Naismith Family Contested PROD, restored and sent to AfD. 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
3. Philip Sandifer DRV aborted, listed at AfD. 2006-05-26 19:30:22 (UTC) Review
4. Church of Reality Minimal discussion, but kept deleted on the basis of lack of stated grounds in the nomination. 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Azn people in United States Kept deleted unanimously. 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
6. AlmightyLOL Kept deleted unanimously. 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
7. List of video game collector and special editions By strict "tally", discussion was "tied", 3-3; however, weight of argument tipped in favor of relisting. 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
8. User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims Speedy deletion endorsed. 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
9. WWE Divas Do New York Keep closure endorsed. 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
10. I Like Monkeys, speedy reversed and send to AFD. 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Science3456 sockpuppetry AfDs, debates relisted except GNAA. 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Structures of the GLA, debate relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second nomination) 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
13. Prhizzm, undeleted and relisting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination). 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
14. List of proper nouns containing a bang This case was complicated by an out-of-process deletion during DRV. In consideration of the consensus afterwards expressed that this out-of-process deletion was in error, article will be relisted afresh at AfD. 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Brooks Kubik Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 17:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
16. ProgressSoft Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 16:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Aww Nigga Kept deleted and protected. 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
18. that ass Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
19. Matrixism Status quo (previous deletions and current redirect) endorsed. 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
20. Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system Discussion subpage undeleted. 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Male Unbifurcated Garment Deletion closure endorsed. 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Major power Redirect closure endorsed unanimously. 18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
23. User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright Deletion endorsed. 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
24. James R. Gillespie Deletion endorsed. 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Longest streets in London Deletion endorsed. 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
26. JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Template:Mills corp Undeleted and relisted on AfD. 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Israel News Agency Undeleted, relisting on AFD has been suggested. 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Eminem's enemies Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Cock block Narrow majority, 12-11, favor undeletion and relisting at AfD. 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Ryan Rider Userfied. 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
32. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 12:18:11 (UTC) Review
33. myg0t Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 08:06:33 (UTC) Review
34. Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine relisted to AFD 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Category:Sylviidae Accidental deletion, content restored. 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Closure as merge endorsed unanimously. 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
37. DJ Cheapshot, SpyTech Records and 4-Zone (rapper) Speedy deletions endorsed. 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
38. The Juggernaut Bitch Kept Deleted. 02:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
39. Thirty Ought Six Deletion endorsed. (Current redirect is unrelated.) 02:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
40. RAD Data Communications Kept deleted. - 12:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Link leak Kpet deleted. - 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
42. Conservative Underground Kept deleted. - 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Template:Tracker Kept deleted. - 11:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Gordon Cheng - Restored and relisted, now at AfD. - 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
45. Category:Wold Newton family members - Close of keep endorsed. - 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Ryze - Undeleted and relisted on AFD per consensus. 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Jack Berman - Restored history per consensus. 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
48. Ghey - kept deleted but protection removed. Redirect target undecided. 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
49. CEWC-Cymru - Restored as contested PROD. 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Nephew (band) - Mistaken nomination. Kept deleted. No prejudice against creation of a different article at the same title. 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Andrew Kepple - Disputed prod, restored and listed to AFD. 03:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Sports betting forum Resotored and stubbed by deleting admin. 07:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
53. YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam Closure of "keep" endorsed. 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Upfront Rewards Kept deleted and protected. 07:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
55. David Anber Kept deleted. 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
56. User_talk:Gomi-no-sensei/archive restored by deleting admin. 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 Kept deleted and protected. 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Willy on Wheels Kept deleted and protected. 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Aaron Donahue Kept deleted and protected. 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
60. OITC fraud Closure endorsed without prejudice to NPOV article being written. 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
61. StarCraft_II Kept deleted and protected against recreation. 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
62. Michael Crook Kept deleted. 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Dualabs Endorse "non-deletion" outcome but strong objections raised to closer's methods. 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
64. VOIPBuster Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Review
65. List of people with absolute pitch kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Template:Infobox Conditionals never actually deleted but no support for undoing the redirect. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
67. MusE returned to normal editing. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Template:Ifdef kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Reverend and The Makers. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverend and The Makers. 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Userbox, Userboxes. Both cross-space redirects restored by a slight 10-8 majority and relisted on WP:RFD. 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
71. Global Resource Bank Initiative. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank Initiative. 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cool (African philosophy). Closure endorsed but page already redirects to African aesthetic anyway. 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
73. Cajun Nights MUSH Kept deleted unanimously. 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Rosario Isasi Closure as keep endorsed unanimously, without prejudice to a future AfD nom. 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
75. El kondor pada Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Review
76. Futuristic Sex Robotz DRV nomination withdrawn. 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
77. Insert Text Redirect restored by unanimous consensus. 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
78. Scott Thayer Deletion closure endorsed. 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
79. Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease Recreation permitted. 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Category:User kon Restored, tho I (Syrthiss) am about to relist it with a cogent explanation at CFD. 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
81. List of "All your base are belong to us" external links Deletion endorsed unanimously. 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
82. SilentHeroes Different from CSD A4 material, restored and relisted at AFD. 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Bands (neck) Restored after copyright problem satisfactorily resolved. 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Review
84. The Amazing Racist Deletion closure endorsed. 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
85. User:Avillia/CVU_Politics Restoration permitted after removal of copyrighted material. 13:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
86. Gurunath Keep closure at AfD endorsed unanimously. 13:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Relisted for 3rd AfD, after deprecation of prematurely-closed 2nd AfD. 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
88. The Game (game), most recent AfD endorsed, page restored. 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review

Recent userbox discussions

• Template:User Republican, Template:User Democrat (result kd, WP:SNOW, strong endorsement and blatantly polemical userboxes.
• Template:User Chinese reunification (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW it has emerged in debate that PRC/ROC question is *de facto* polemical and divisive.)
• Template:User UKIP, Template:User UK Conservative, etc (result Close, WP:SNOW,massive endorsement for deletion)
• Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en Speedy undeleted and listed at TfD after initial defective DRV. 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User Church of Christ (keep deleted)
• Template:User atheist (result undelete)
• Template:User scientology (result kd)
• Template:User liberal (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW, massive endorsement)
• Template:User Hell, Template:User Ideal Dictator, and Template:User Elitist Consensus was to keep User Hell (which has already survived TfD), and undelete and TfD the others. 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User liberty (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User chav & Template:User notchav (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User hate (result kept deleted. WP:SNOW. Only nominator for review wanted it undeleted).
• Template:User Wikicheese-ologist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User ProIsrael: (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User varied sex: (result kept deleted, closed as frivolous challenge)
• Template:User Triceratops Accident (result kept deleted)
• Template:User antiuserboxdeletion (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Darwinist(result kept deleted)
• User:UBX/Communist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User No Marxism (result kept deleted)
• Template:User infidel undeleted.
• Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master ... it's complicated discussion
• Template:User against Saud (result almost unanimous keep deleted)
• Template:User_Unamerican and others (result nomination delisted early; template kept deleted)
• Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover (result kept deleted).
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts (result kept deleted)
• Template:User admins ignoring policy (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Unamerican and others (result kept deleted)
• Template:User vomit (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism (result: both kept deleted)
• Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker (Archive#Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker: undeleted and relisted on TfD)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Same Sex Marriage (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User independent Iraq (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User antiparty (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User review (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Copyright Nazi (result: kept deleted)
• User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF (result: undeleted)
• Template: User evol-X (result: kept deleted)
• Template: User feminist (result: undeleted)
• Template:User userbox insurgent (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User userbox revolution (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
• Template:User opposes ubx screwing (result: kept deleted as protected page)
• Template:User USA Police State (result)
• Template:User No Meat (result: recreated as redirect)
• George W. Bush templates
• Pseudo-templates Userbox:Anti ACLU, Userbox:Anti UN (result)

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 [25] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[26] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [27] 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. [28] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [29] 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 [30]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [31] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [32] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [33] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [34] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [35] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [36] 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 [37] 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. [38] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [39] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[40] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[41] 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. [42] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [43] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [44] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [45] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [46] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [47] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [48] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [49] 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. [50] 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. [51] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [52] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [53] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [54], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [55] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [56] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [57] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [58] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [59] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [60] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [61] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [62] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [63] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [64] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [65] 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 [66]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. [67] 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
99. Myg0t overturned and undeleted. 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
100. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
101. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
102. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
103. Category:Roman Catholic actors, speedy deletion reversed; relisted for further consideration at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31#Category:Roman_Catholic_actors. March 31 2006

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

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

Content review

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

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

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• User:Freestylefrappe. Thanks, KI 00:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This was recently discussed. It was deleted in good faith at the request of a user who has left the project. See m:Right to vanish. Without a compelling reason to ignore the user's wishes, I strongly recommend against restoration. Rossami (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Decisions to be reviewed

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 May 15}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 15}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 15|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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)

4 May 2006

StarCraft_II (Talk:StarCraft_II)

This page is protected against recreation, the blue link does not mean it's been undeleted.

You may not have noticed if you haven't been reading this article recently, but it has changed a LOT since it's previous vote for deletion. For example one vote reads "there's not a shred of fact in this article" - in the version as it was then this was very much true, as I saw it before and any admin can see if they check the history (hopefully?).

The original article was recreated with a lot of rubbish including citing a YTMD page as a reference that the game was going to be released soon, but then recently updated with a lot of verifiable facts and very little speculation.

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson (an administrator apparently) deleted the article without any attempt at discussion citing the old vote for deletion, from when the article was very different as it was prior to him deleting it.

It has been stated by Blizzard (as the good version of the article prior to deletion said) that there WILL be a StarCraft II game released at some point, so this is not "crystal ball" at all, and again I will point out that the article in it's current version was verifiable facts only and thus there's no reason this should be deleted.
¬¬¬Jack Hates Jesus (yep) 09:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For reference of those who want to vote but can't see what the article was before it was deleted so they can make an informed decision (those who aren't administrators), Here is a copy of what the article looked like before it was deleted, citing a very old vote for deletion - by the way this is the same user as above, my username was just banned. see my user page for details.
¬¬¬Lesbian and bi girls are awesome {Talk beauty} 11:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Overturn per my rationale above. ¬¬¬Lesbian and bi girls are awesome {Talk beauty} 11:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted since whatever has changed in the article, Wikipedia is still not a crystal ball. Speculated unannounced games are really hard to cover encyclopaedically. By which I mean as close to impossible as makes no practical difference. Just zis Guy you know? 11:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

List of people with absolute pitch

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with absolute pitch was closed as delete. I don't recognize many of the voters so I assume few regular music editors voted. The reasons given for deletion were "Unencyclopedic, unverifiable" with no explination. There never was any attempt at verification, so I'm not sure how this was determined. Reasons given by voters for deletion include the untrue ("In professional musicians and composers, having absolute pitch is commonplace", "Besides, it's perfect pitch") and indicate that voters had not read that article or were familiar enough with the topic. Hyacinth 07:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How would you source it? I know people with perfect pitch, but when you explore the issue you find that perfect often <> absolute. I am also always suspicious of unsourced lists, and dislike bare lists (i.e. lists which add nothing to what a category would provide) and lists which include both real and fictional characters. I endorse closure but could be persuaded otherwise if there were an obvious purpose to the list other than trivia, and if I were persuaded that there are reliable sources (i.e. qualified musicologists making the claim, not the people themselves). Just zis Guy you know? 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure In the face of unanimous AfD consensus, I am forced to agree with JzG: while this is perhaps a nice concept for a list, I see no evidence of maintainability or verifiability here. Nominator is welcome to write a verifiable new list with limitations aimed at maintaining the list to a reasonable length. Xoloz 12:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crook

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook (second nomination) was closed as delete. This is probably a good decision, if you count votes. If, however, you listen to the template at the top of that AfD, it's clearly not a good close. It had 9 delete and 4 keep, once the users who the closer said weren't "counted" were removed from the tally. However, several of these delete "votes" are clearly invalid. The very first reads "Complete Delete not notable other than for creating controversial websites. porges 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)." Now, this does is probably true. However, that is clearly not at all relevant, because the reason he was on Wikipedia in the first place is that he created controversial websites; he was notable because he was notorious because of his websites. It's like saying we shouldn't have an article on Jimbo because he's not notable other than for creating Wikipedia. Later, User:71.227.177.1 left a very detailed argument about why we should have kept the article. This was completely ignored in the closing decision as the user was an anon and so did not have "suffrage." Another delete "vote" read, "Delete This article in itself is superfluous, sketchy, and seems to be borderline violating the NPOV policy. This article is constantly vandalized, and seems to lack citations where necessary. --EMC 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)." Since when is an article being vandalized, a bit unreferenced and slightly POV a valid reason to delete an article? Then there's the nom itself. The nom said that "...There is very little verifiable information in the article to support the idea that "Michael Crook" even exists as an individual, as opposed to a public persona or a project undertaken by an unknown number of people. Of the citations and external links listed at the end of the article, half of them ultimately originate from Crook himself (who, if the article is any indication, can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything), half of the remaining ones are not available at the URLs given, and the one anti-Crook site that can actually be reached is far from meeting WP:V standards and may in fact have been created by Crook himself, for all we know. The talk page is dominated by IP addresses and registered users who have never edited on any non-Crook-related subject ever, as was the last AfD on this article; how many of these are sock puppets of Michael Crook?" In short, the nominator wanted the article deleted because a) it was lacking some sources and b) the nom thought that Michael Crook sockpuppets were editing the article. The nom actually does say that Crook is probably notable enough for an article. These are clearly not valid reasons for deletion; one might post an {{unreferenced}} or a RFCU if they think there aren't enough sources or there are sockpuppets, not take it to AfD! Michael Crook is clearly notable, as the nom admits, and should not have been deleted. --Rory096 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per rory. I didn't quite get this, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted. Whatever the nominator thought, consensus was that the article should be deleted, and as I read it those advocating deletion did not agree with the nominator that Michael Crook was notable enough for an article. Therefore relisting on the basis of what was, in the end, merely the first of many opinions would be nonsensical. Consensus validly judged, it was considerate of Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:V, which is a policy, whereas WP:BIO is a guideline and its applicability to Internet trolls with 15 minutes of fame on Fox is dubious anyway) and no new evidence has been presented. (P.S. I voted 'delete', disregard this if it comes down to a vote if necessary, but I think my arguments are valid from a DRV perspective.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The guy has had less media exposure than I have (I've been on national radio four times, plus I've been interviewed at length twice on radio and featured in the Times Educational Supplement). I am definitely not notable. This guy is just another loudmouth with a website, of which there is no shortage. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/kd Discounting of anons and new users is within administrative discretion. Concerns over the authorship and sourcing of the article are valid reasons to delete. If anyone believes Crook is notable, they are free to write a NPOV, sourced article right now. The version deleted at AfD, however, was correctly judged. Xoloz 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted Discounting anons and new users is common closure practice. Looks like a valid AfD to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

3 May 2006

Rosario Isasi

Speedy-deleted by user:Luigi30, 19 March 2006 - presumably for no assertion of notability

First nomination, 20 Mar 06 - speedy-closed as copyvio, page deleted

Second nomination, 9 Apr 06 - closed as keep

Third nomination, closed as keep

Recently survived an AfD as Keep. The only person who offered any kind of evidence of her notability was one person linking to a bio of her that shows nothing but ordinary academic credentials. In addition, several people opposed deletion based on the presence of another AfD a couple weeks earlier which passed after six votes and no discussion whatsoever. I personally would prefer to it deleted since as it stands, she has not been demonstrated to have any more notability than anyone else in academia (thus failing WP:BIO). However what I would really like to see is the ruling overturned from "Keep" to "No consensus", as there was by no means a rough consensus to keep that article and if or when I re-list it I don't want everybody opposing it just because it was closed as a consensus keep before. — GT 23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• As the closing admin, what can I say, she's a professor. Unlike, say, Internet memes, there are no pressing concerns of verfiability for American academics and I had no reason to interpret the consensus any way other than 'keep'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, let's look at the "consensus". Of 19 people who showed up to the page,

- 76 of us were unconvinced of the subject's notability and supported deletion (Tony Bruguier, Fan1967, AKADriver, IrishGuy, Simon Cursitor, GT, Brian G. Crawford, and Pete.Hurd). (Edit: Simon Cursitor felt the "retention" of the article was not "justified" but apparently not on grounds of notability.)

- 5 people (badlydrawnjeff, Terence Ong, Anville, Jeff Burdges, and TheKMan) said "Keep, notable", without supporting their claim. They evidently think AfD is a vote. (Edit: on the basis, I should assume, of the evidence below)

- 5 people (MetaMagician3000, David Sneek, David.Mestel, Jcuk, and Monicasdude) opposed deletion on account of there being another AfD shortly before. MetaMagician3000, David.Mestel, and indirectly Monicasdude used the word "notable" without providing any support.

- Only one person (Loremaster) came even close to providing support for the notability claim, referring to a biography that didn't contain any evidence of notability in my view and it doesn't look like anyone else thought so either as none of the Keep votes referred to it.

Going by a vote on the merits of the article, it's 9 keeps versus 7 deletes. When it comes to actually discussing the merits of the article, which is the purpose of the AfD process, the keep supporters didn't really even make an attempt to convince the rest of us that she was notable. The only discussion was on whether this AfD should have been filed. You should go by the results of the discussion, not vote counting (which only yields a far from overwhelming 63% keep rate anyway), and the discussion revolved around two outcomes: "Delete", or "Close AfD as out of process". For you to claim that the consensus arrived at was "Keep" is grossly misrepresenting what actually happened. — GT 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to allow you to misrepresent my comments on the matter. I said "Keep, appears to be notable enough, but requires major expansion." This comes AFTER Loremaster and the nominee provided evidence of her nobility. I won't speak for Terence Ong, but his comment at least gives the impression of similar rationale, as did David.Mestel's initial comment, Anville's, and the KMan, who's comment you considered "a joke." Meanwhile, you don't seem to question Crawford's comment ("Wikipedia is not a who's who"), or note Pete.Hurd's questionable rationale following the wealth of information in the debate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's how it looked to me as you did not specify why you thought it was notable. I'd still be overjoyed if someone could refence some actual facts rather than pointing to a bio and google results and think that notability is obvious. — GT 02:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to map out each multiple assertion in my commentary to make it worth something. I'm not sure why you don't think the bio and scholar results aren't "actual facts," though. I mean, what else do you want to go by in this case? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Because her bio only talks about her degrees, her research interests, and some organizations she is a part of. This is typical of any professor or academic (as well as her having been published in journals several times) and per WP:PROFTEST we should look for something that makes her particularly notable. If an academic person is really notable then you should be able to find many non-academic sources which refer to her and assert her notability. I haven't seen one yet in this case. — GT 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

-- As another of the names you have hauled in as corroboration for your "line", GT, it would have been "nice" to have been told (perhaps the e-mail is trrapped in the Blue Frog D-O-S of yesterday's date) and even nicer to have been cited correctly. My objection to the entry (at the time that I voted) was not "non-notable", but that what was then there was too much a stub to be a workable entry if challenged. Anyway, <irony>thank you</irony> for bringing me into this, and, in order not to muddy the waters, I formally (as good discipline requires) register a No Vote on this. -- Simon Cursitor 07:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So instead of suggesting expanding the stub you decided it did not "justify retention". Under what circumstances would you arrive at that conclusion other than if it was non-notable or unverifiable? Regardless I struck your name above, although my point was not really to engage in vote-counting as I believe that's what the closing admin did and is incorrect procedure. — GT 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure Process was followed and no new relevant information has been brought up. JoshuaZ 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would not personally consider this person to meet the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies but enough people did during the AFD discussions that I think we should give the article the benefit of doubt for now. Endorse closure but without prejudice against renomination if the article is not improved in a reasonable period of time. Rossami (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Endorse Closure. Ignoring the point that something really needs to be done about the constant AfDing of consensus keep articles, but I'm not convinced there wasn't a consensus to do anything on this one, and I'm still very convinced she meets the strict standards for notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I just want to remind the last two voters that what I am seeking here is an overturn from "Keep" to "No consensus" which doesn't affect the status of the article but will make a difference during its next AfD where people will look and see 2 keeps and then cry foul. — GT 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Qué? I closed as 'keep'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, misread the nom. I forget that people take keep results here occasionally. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the line between no consensus and keep doesn't mean that much and I can see how someone would view it as consensus. Kotepho 06:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The line between them is that next time this article goes up for AfD, an army of inclusionists will vote to keep immediately solely on the basis that it was kept twice before, even though the first keep was based upon a turnout of 6 people, none of whom engaged in any sort of discussion, and the second keep was not truly a keep at all. — GT 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd suggest to GT that if he chooses to renominate the article for deletion and opens his rationale with "This was closed twice, but I dispute the first close because of foo and the second close because of bar. Please examine the article before voting 'keep' on the basis that it was kept twice before", people will pay attention. That has been my experience, at least. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I gather I'm going to have to do it that way, although I get the feeling if I list it again I'll only get a bunch more "I feel it in my gut" keep votes, as through 3 AfD's and a deletion review I'm still waiting for fact number one supporting her notability. — GT 08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure The first reason for my position is that a request to overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus" is almost meaningless. Although some would argue that a no consensus result makes another later AfD easier to fashion, the end result is the same. In any event, a very compelling case would be needed for me to sanction the de minimis change, and this isn't. More importantly, on the merits, I would have closed this exactly the same way. Xoloz 12:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, can be re-nominated any time, if there are problems with significance / verifiability, tag the article - if it is tagged with {{importance}} for a month and nothing is done that makes a subsequent AfD easier to justify> But actually it looks as if she is a prominent bioconservative, and this is just a crap article on a good subject. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cajun Nights MUSH

Relist Cajun Nights MUSH

• This entry was deleted because the Mush is not popular? the number of google hits is irrelevant. Well, as far as Mushes go, all of them are unpopular. Mushes and Muds aren't the same since the creation of MMoRPGs (Massive Mult-User Roleplaying Games) like Everquest or World of Warcraft. Mushes have always been a small niche in regards to Muds, and as such didn't attract many players.

• This mush has historical sigificiance, and as such, regardless if it is popular, well known, up and running or dead and gone. It is still one of the only mushes to be running concurrently for over 10 years. However, the mush is up and running and still attracting players.

Deletion Debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cajun_Nights_MUSH%282%29

John 'Imagicka' Blackthorne 16:20, 3 May 2006 (EST)

• Keep deleted "Historical significance"? Gee, I must have missed that exhibit last time I was at the Smithsonian. All kidding aside, there was a 4-to-1 consensus to delete, and the reasoning of the delete voters (low Google score, poor ranking on Mudconnector) was more persuasive than the one guy who wanted to keep it (because he said he'd heard of it before). I can't imagine that anyone would have closed the debate differently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, spammy article about software of no particular evident importance. Just zis Guy you know? 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Valid Afd. Nomination provides few reasons for reexamination, none of them compelling. Regarding historical significance, if the mush is still running in 20 more years, I will reconsider then. Xoloz 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

2 May 2006

Dualabs

Closing admin says "The outcome of the debate was keep and expand", but as near as I can tell a total of zero (that's zero, none, nada) of the participants in the discussion suggested keeping and expanding the article. Admin discretion in closing is reasonable, but "discretion" doesn't (and shouldn't) mean wholesale misrepresentation of the discussion (whether intentional or not). Link to debate. Nandesuka 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. The close was a clear error. Nandesuka 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• You want to pick a fight with Tony Sidaway? Go right ahead. He has a long history of completely ignoring process when it conflicts with his (generally correct) view of what is of encyclopaedic value. I'd say merge and redirect, which seems to be the best way forward if we can't find more to say about the subject than this. Just zis Guy you know? 11:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Debate was here. While I would probably have voted keep or merge, myself, we need to stand firm that administrator's closing discretion is not the same thing as ignoring every single vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• While I frequently disagree with Tony, I must say that the closure is not completely out of touch with reality. From the nomination we have: "The interesting information about the technology employed could probably be usefully merged to US_Census" and the last vote is "Merge with Census information, easy". Two people saying that merging some or all of the content might be an idea, and doing so would require us to not delete. The difference with a merge and a keep is not all that great, since merging (and unmerging) can be done by anybody. Also the argument for deletion is only the "it is not notable" assertion, and considering that we are talking about data handling for a huge dataset as the U.S. Census, I am not convinced that assessment is a good one. Hence, I will endorse Tony's decision to not delete, and recommend that the article be merged if feasible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure as no real useful rationale for deletion, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I've considered this close very carefully. The information is verifiable and is too important to remove from Wikipedia--DUALabs compression format poses an ongoing problem for 1960 and 1970 Census microdata [68]. While a merge may be in order, I considered that article to be too new (just over a week) for this. A merge can be attempted by anyone--no need for a deletion discussion. After the close, I added another reference and added more information about the company. Of course the suggestion that the company that handled the compression of *all* of the 1960 and 1970 census data archive is "non-notable" is simply incomprehensible. --Tony Sidaway 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Being more process wonkish I probably would have closed it "no consensus, keep" as I'm not seeing a consensus there, too few people commented, but I think Tony did the Right Thing, if possibly for the wrong reason. It would have been a keep either way, (when in doubt, keep, after all...) Change close reason but keep closed ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think two 'delete's and a 'merge' constitute a clear consensus to delete. *The closing admin's use of discretion was appropriate. I suppose he might have said, "No consensus" rather than "consensus to keep and expand", but I endorse the closure. Change the close reason if that's useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Contra JzG, I will gladly disagree with Mr. Sidaway when given good cause, but this isn't it. The nominator suggested merging, and the final commenter cast his lot that way. That's two out of four "votes", if one counts. In a debate with so few participants, it is also not illogical for closer to give some small weight to his own opinion of article merit. Closer also provided an explicit rationale. This case is within discretion. Xoloz 13:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• At first I thought the close was somewhat reasonable, but when I thought about it more I realized- if this article was about a company that still existed, this would have unquestionably been deleted as vanispamcruftertisement. Do these guys get special treatment because it was several years ago? If Sidaway wanted to make the points he made in the closure, he should have commented on the Afd. He could have relisted it for more input rather than acting in his unfortunately-too-typical "I am unquestionably right so I will disregard everyone else" fashion. Then, we'd have seen what other people thought of his rationale, and we wouldn't be here at DRV. The sources do verify a couple things- the name of the company, the guy who started it. If the census employee had not happened to start a new company for this, we wouldn't even be having this conversation- nobody would think of an article on a single individual just because they happened to work for a large organization. If there's something useful here to merge, let it be merged to United States Census Bureau. However, if the determination is that this is just a small crufty detail, unworthy of a merge, then it doesn't warrant its own article, either. Anyway, I think the answer is already clear for purposes of DRV- overturn, relist, and ask Sidaway to not close any more AFDs. I'm not even saying his answer is neccessarily wrong, but if he wants to be that activist, he should get involved in the afd discussion, not just swoop in and close according to his whim. Friday (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You're saying that you think an article about a modern company that handled, say, the compression of data sets for the 2000 Census would be deleted as "non-notable"? As I have said above, I find the suggestion quite incomprehensible. We certainly don't want articles on every single landscaping company, but at the same time we should avoid deleting obviously important information. --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So, a company that has their hands on the data is "notable", but a company that has their hands on the grass clippings is obviously not? That's silly- you're just showing your own pro-IT bias here. If the modern company that did work for the 2000 census was covered in several reliable third-party sources, certainly they should be included. If all we can dig up is a government doc that says "we hired company XYZ for this", then they should not be. It all comes down to verifiability. And, simple verification that something existed is not enough. Census Bureau is a "notable" organization, but this does not automatically make everyone they do business with notable. Friday (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Show me where Business Week, or the Wall Street Journal talked about this company, and it will probably instantly change my mind. WP:CORP explains all of this- it's a pretty decent guideline (but the core concern here is WP:V, of course). Friday (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • There is no concern about verifiability here. The article documents the precise contracts under which DUALabs performed the tasks for US government agencies. WP:CORP is a guideline for inclusion. Not every encyclopedic company is in the pages of Business Week or WSJ. "The simple verification that something existed is not enough" is of course incorrect. That is precisely and solely what verification entails. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It surprises me that someone who's been around for a long time would so misunderstand what we do here. We try to avoid making our own judgments about what is interesting or important, due to personal biases. Instead, we use reliable sources. Your dog is interesting to you, and would apparently be verifiable according to you also, assuming it has registration papers, a local dog permit, or whatever. There are some editors who believe that anything that can be shown to exist needs an article about it, but I believe they're still quite in the minority. Take it up on WT:V if you wish, but last I noticed, the consensus among experienced editors was that we need verifiability by reputable sources, not just by any record we can find. Friday (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The government contract numbers under which DUALabs performed the job are in the article. This satisfies the verification criterion. The question of whether there should be a separate article on this company is a different matter, which I left open in my closing comments, to wit: "Keep and expand Failing expansion, may be considered for a merge with US Census". --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: It seems to me that, with respect, the last critique is returning to the controversy over the game (game) -- namely the view that a reputable source is one which, by its existence or non-existence, supports the view which TPTB within Wiki have already come to. Moreover, my understanding was that Deletion review was to review deletions, not to act as a covert means of deleting articles which had reached either a "keep" consenses, or a "no consensus" position and therfore fell to be kept rather than deleted. But increasingly it would appear (to me) that Wiki process is directed toward deleting articles, rather than making poor articles good ones. IMHO, Simon Cursitor 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
            • It would of course be wrong to interpret the verifiability criterion to mean that we can only ever have articles about companies that have been written about in business newspapers. It does look to me as if at least some of the move to review this close has come from this misconception. There is no reason to doubt the sources available on this company and its products, which are still in regular use by researchers, some thirty years after its demise. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Sjakkalle, JzG and Tom Harrison. Three votes isn't much to go on, and I think it's okay that Tony used his discretion here. FreplySpang (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure 4 people does not consensus make, even if it is 75% to delete. There is also that whole when in doubt don't delete thing. Kotepho 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• The way I see this is 1 delete by putting on prod, 1 keep by removing prod, 2 delete on AfD, 1 merge on AfD and AfD nom who suggested possible merge. So roughly speaking that's 3.5 delete, 2.5 keep (in some form). That means no consensus to delete. Once that has been sorted it's not up to the deletion process to decide if article should be expanded, kept, or merged as they can do decided through normal talk page channels. (Disclaimer: please don't think that I'm strictly vote counting here, I know AfD is not a vote, but the figures are just a way of expressing the lack of consensus to delete). Petros471 17:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Notwithstanding the unintentionally humorous complaint from a user above who makes a habit of out-of-process experimental deletion, I think Tony did the right thing by stepping in to save the article. The lack of any serious debate or meaningful participation in the original AfD essentially renders the deletion process void. In my view, this is a proper use of admin discretion. I say endorse close and ask Sidaway to close all AFDs. Incidentally, Dualabs was extensively featured in a Washington Post article, Ginda, Thomas. Old Census, New Twist; Four Area Districts , Mar 29, 1970. pg. E1, 2 pgs; and its business problems were discussed in the Wall Street Journal, Jacobs, Sanford. "Data Analyst Sues to Save Program Priced at $8,000, Vs. U.S.'s $110 Tag", Dec 18, 1981. p. 25. -- JJay 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• That looks like verifiability to me. I hope those sources make it into the article. I'm still uncomfortable with the level of activism in the closure, but it looks like the answer was the right one, at least. Friday (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I should hope that all administrators would be activists in their promotion of our deletion policy. One thing that our deletion policy has always been clear on is that one does not delete verifiable information from an encyclopedia where an alternative exists that has not yet been fully explored. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There are a number of things I might've done differently, but Tony certainly made the right call given the circumstances: if in doubt, don't delete. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, good closure. Unfortunately, sometimes facts and reality must disturb the delicate vote-counting machine that is AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• In a debate as anemic as this, I can't see a strong reason to say that the article should be deleted; if I had seen it, I would have relisted it. That said, a merge would be more appropriate here, unless someone is actually interested in doing the grunt work of expanding the article (I know I have better things to do). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bands (neck)

No discussion that I can see.

Page created by User:Ncox. His talk page.

Page was labelled as copyvio by User:Marcika and deleted with summary yep, copyvio by User:Geni. Don't see that any attempt was made to contact the page author.

The alleged copyvio tagged by Marcika was of a Geocities page: http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Bands.htm

Looks to me like the Geocities page this was supposed to be a copy of was in fact a page with the same information written by the same Wikipedian, who has chosen to upload his researched text to Wikipedia. The user is Ncox, the Geocities page belongs to noelcox, and the text credited Noel Cox as author of the website which was taken as a reference. It isn't conventional to sign articles, and in most cases not good enough to cite something you wrote as an external link, but this doesn't make the page a copyvio, and the text itself had merit and named independent sources. If he wrote it hisself, it ain't a copyvio, and the information is useful and valuable. Recommend undelete. Smerdis of Tlön 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I would note, though, that the title as is seems to indicate that "Bands" is a species of "neck." It should be restored under a better title--Bands (apparel) or something. · rodii · 22:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, undelete it -- I apologize for my overly fast conclusion that it was copyvio. -- Marcika 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Given the rampant abuse we've had with copyright violators, I can not condemn the users who acted on it as a probable copyvio. (By the way, the page history shows that the copyvio tag was added by Ewlyahoocom, not Marcika.) The geocities page is explicitly tagged as copyrighted - a status incompatible with GFDL. The {{copyvio}} tag sat on the article unanswered for over a week - ample time for the author to have cleared up the copyright question (though it would have been courteous if someone had also added a note to the author's talk page). Now that the author has been contacted, overturn speedy-deletion iff the author confirms release. Rossami (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the notices about copyrights on the edit screens, I would say that if the original author chose to duplicate his text here, he has licensed it for us under the GFDL even if he claimed copyright on the version he posted to his web site. Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That is an assumption that I'd rather not test in court, especially when we don't need to in this specific case. The user's contribution history shows that he's still active. We can afford to wait. Rossami (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Restore per above. The user could also just repost the page himself. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy restore is a completely inappropriate response to a copyright violation. If the original editor wants to give us verifiable proof that they are the same as the person who wrote the geocities page, and they remove the incompatible copyright off that page, then we can talk. Till then, it has to stay deleted, by law. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Insert Text

Original Discussion

Later Discussion

and for anyone who is able to read deletedpage histories Talk:Insert text

I don't really see a problem with leaving it a red link, but based on this, it does seem to be a bigger vandalism magnet that the redirect would have been, also in all seriousness I just don't see anyone creating a serious article on the topic of Insert text in the immediate future, it only seems natural to treat the same as Image:Example.jpg, and all the others, not to mention, as long as Insert text exists, it can be watch-listed, which gives an immediate red flag whenever there's a 'newbie test'--Minor copy edit name 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted pages can also be watchlisted. Watchlisting it as a deleted page has the advantage that it's tagged with N when it shows up on the list - an immediate trigger for investigation. On the other hand, I don't have any objections to this redirect either. More to the point, however, I do not see any evidence that this page was ever discussed at Redirects for deletion. Overturn speedy-deletion and list if appropriate. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore the redirect, mostly harmless. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore the redirect There wasn't an RfD. Had there been one, the result would be keep, I'd assume, because redirects are cheap, and this one foils useless edits. Since there wasn't an RfD anyway, I'm taking the liberty of recreating the thing. Xoloz 13:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore the redirect or rather, endorse Xoloz' recreation. Congratulations, you've found a cross-namespace redirect that I approve of! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse recreation. For the record I've also undeleted Insert text (lowercase t). Thryduulf 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Conditionals

See Tfd, a similar problem as with Template:Ifdef listed below:

Template:Infobox Conditionals(edit talk links history) was a model template explaining and exploring an alternative to the infamous hiddenStructure kludge breaking accessibilty with some text / speech / legacy browsers. It's quoted as example on a few pages (see backlinks), it used Qif for some time, and was later modified to use #if:. The Tfd stated that it's redundant because another model Template:Infobox(edit talk links history) now also uses #if:. Therefore the decision was redirect, and so far it made sense. But meanwhile Infobox was modified to use neither #if: nor the similar ifdef technique, and links to Infobox Conditionals promising to explain some kind of if-technique are trapped in this episode of the WP:AUM wars. As the premise of the Tfd is no longer true I propose to nullify the decision. That would allow to cut the redirect and revert to the last version actually using #if:. -- Omniplex 20:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

MusE

Latest version of this software article was deleted after four people voted it non-notable. No one else commented. Reasons it is notable:

• Simply because it has an annoyingly similar name to MuSE, but is not the same program. Redirecting to MuSE from MusE is totally wrong and misleading.

Other notability criteria:

• Featured as a cover story in Linux Magazine. Other articles by third parties: [69] [70]
• One of the major components of PlanetCCRMA, a major distribution for musicians. — Omegatron 14:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate. If those references weren't in the original article, that might explain the deletion. I'd have to see the original article. This is one of the reasons why I like applying WP:CITE and WP:NOR templates first, instead of just going out and deleting them. Anyway, by WP:SOFTWARE this system definitely meets notability criteria. Captainktainer * Talk 15:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Added a link to the deleted revision. — Omegatron 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but recreate with sources Afd closure was correct, but with new sources seems worth recreating. I can see from the afd that MusE and MuSE were regarded as the same thing, so don't forget the otheruses at the top :). (A reference describing the confusion between the two similar names might be good to show they they are distinct, to stop this confusion happening again. Regards, MartinRe 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There was a disambig at the top of both articles before deletion. — Omegatron 18:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, obviously insufficient research at AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• And indeed before AfD, otherwise it would not have been nominated in the first place. Just zis Guy you know? 15:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse per MartinRe what was technically a decision not to delete. I've reverted the article to the last non-redirect version and added the links given by Omegatron above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1 May 2006

Note: 30 April 2006 was empty

Scott Thayer

Article was brought to AfD with the argument that it was NN vanity. Discussion went along, User:W.marsh brought out links showing that he met WP:BIO in at least one area, and, by my count, two. Delete votes continued after W.marsh's assertion of notability with the same arguments as the nom, suggesting that policy was ignored by voters. The decision was question at the deleting admin's talk page [71], where he simply went with a straight vote assuming that the delete votes took into consideration the new information while reaching a consensus. I do not consider that User:Titoxd worked out of process or made a bad faith close, but I do feel an incorrect decision was made.

Personal opinion: Undelete, as the article clearly meets basic standards not notability set out by WP guidelines. A relisting may be worthwhile to generate clearer consensus, but given the guidelines, I don't think it's necessary, but I'll leave that to others. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). Reviewing the AFD discussion, I do not see the subsequent users either ignoring W.marsh's evidence or ignoring the policy. It appears to me that they were merely disagreeing with W.marsh's interpretation of WP:BIO. Having reviewed the links provided during the AFD discussion, I find a small sidebar story in Business week and 2 quotes in local news. Looking at the google test evidence sited during the AFD discussion, I actually find that they were over-stated (returning 11 and 141 hits respectively), apparently because the nominator failed to exclude the duplicates. This person exists and appears to be a professional in his field but I can not find anything sufficiently distinguishing to meet our generally accepted standards of inclusion. Rossami (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted as written, but without prejudice against possible re-creation if he truly is notable. The article at the time of the deletion was two short sentences and a link to his personal website. The article was written by a user named Robothayer (note thayer in name), whose only contributions were to this article, making this almost certainly vanity. I'd suggest that having two lengthly debates about this two-line wonder would not be useful to Wikipedia in general. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per above. Valid decision per policy and per process. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• CHange to abstain. The gorunds for notability asserted in the original article are well short of what I owuld consider actually notable, but Google Scholar indicates that he has a significant academic reputation in the field of robotics, which is pretty much absent from the article as written. If Starblind would like to wander along to my Talk page or contact me some other way I think we could probably write a Much Better Article. Just zis Guy you know? 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I probably could as well, which is why I brought it here instead of just recreating it. Given that most editors here have no bias against recreating it with notability intact, that's a good sign, but I'm honestly not seeing the difference. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure Assuming good faith, I agree with Rossami that no evidence firmly suggest editors ignored W. Marsh's evidence, only that they chose to disagree with it. One reason this may be so is provided by Starblind: whatever one's stance on the WP:BIO, the concerns of WP:AUTO were also relevant, and may have carried more weight in editor's mind. Valid and conclusive AfD, closed without flaw in process. Xoloz 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence to suggest that WP:AUTO was weighed in the context of the debate, however, nor is WP:AUTO de facto a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess it's one of those differences that makes no difference. Just zis Guy you know? 15:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted but allow re-creation. If he's notable, someone will write him an article. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The dudes hitting #1 on Yahoo and #2 on Google.--TheMadTim 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted without prejudice per Starblind. I really can't see the point of doing a Deletion Review on a two-sentence article - it's not a case of masses of work being lost. David | Talk 09:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, with no prejudice against re-creation. I don't care about WP:AUTO in this case, but the evidence for even minimal notability is very weak. Maybe in a couple months or years he'll meet notability standards. Captainktainer * Talk 09:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• As the closer, I have no objection against recreation iff there is someone actively editing and improving the article and can prove notability. Personally, I'd rather have no article than a sub-sub-stub. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete the article--216.7.254.254 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ifdef

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_18#Template:Ifdef, this Tfd stated erroneously that this is a fork of {{Qif}}, which got its own Mfd:

1. Unlike Qif it doesn't use named parameters, its user interface is different.
2. Unlike Qif m:Template:Ifdef can be substituted, because it has no else part.
3. Its code (23 bytes) is a shorthand for a technique documented on a help page.
4. This technique isn't advanced, esoteric, or depending on parser functions.
5. The Tfd was part of a campaign to replace {{Qif}} everywhere by the new #if:.
6. It works in certain cases where #if: fails, see mediazilla:5678, Meta, and here.
7. Ifdef is used to analyze problems with Qif and #if:, it has various backlinks.
8. It was used without problems in {{Tlsp}}, {{Tlx}}, and others for several weeks.
9. These templates were "upgraded" to #if: shortly before the end of the Tfd.

-- Omniplex 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Futuristic Sex Robotz

The full debate can be read here.

This article, based on the nerdcore group of the same name, was deleted based on the fact that it "is an 'internet thing' that is new and not widely spread on the internet" and that many of the votes to keep were made by new users, anon users, or mission-driven editors. It basically became a flamewar with many of the deletionists quoting registration dates to discredit votes.

I propose a review of the deletion based on the fact that it has now been 2 months since the final decision to delete the article and several new pieces of information have surfaced that support the article's notability. The group now meets the notability requirements for "performers outside of mass media traditions" in WP:MUSIC.

• '"Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."'
  • One of their songs based on WoW is now slated to be on "first ever Nerdcore Compilation CD."[[72]]
  • The compilation is mentioned on "the official website for the Rec.Music.Hip-Hop Usenet newsgroup". Obviously, this is a notable and verifiable source, not to mention that it is a site dedicated mostly to mainstream hip-hop. I think if it warrants mention on there it should have a WP article.
• '"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre."'
  • The group has released 15 songs on their first full-length release and recently released one single based on the soon to be released movie and current internet phenomenon Snakes on a Plane. They even have entered the single in a contest on [[73]] to get the song included in the Snakes on a Plane soundtrack.[[74]] The song currently has 750 votes. Most songs have fewer than 100 votes with a few songs recieving 200-300 votes.
• Also, one of FCYTravis' arguments for deletion is that it has only "344 total Google hits" is irrelevant because it now gets [35,100 total hits]. I think a gain of 34756 hits in a little under 2 months is astonishing.

Thank you for your time.--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 10:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Recommendation to withdraw DRV Wait until they win the Snakes on a Plane contest, which they will. As soon as they win it, they'll become notable (because it'll be reported in more "mainstream" news), at which point it'll be a great idea to reinstate it. As it is, all this DRV will do is make it harder to reconstitute the article, due to a more hardened deletionist response, which would be a shame. As it is, unfortunately, none of the sources you mentioned qualify as sources to establish notability under a wikilawyered interpretation of the notability rules, and the "Google Test," on AfD and DRV, isn't enough to keep an article around. Captainktainer * Talk 10:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Concur with above: In addition, and knowing nothing about Nerdcore, (which presumably is quite new or non-notable if there's never been a compilation CD), "first ever Nerdcore Compilation CD" would be additional claim to notability once it has happened. Stephen B Streater 10:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawing DRV I see your point, so I'll withdraw my DRV for the time being. Thanks for your help and support. I don't really know much about deletion policies or those regarding DRV so I guess I didn't realize that now isn't a good time to propose this. I was just being bold. On a side not, I want to point out that at the time that the compilation was first introduced, I assume, as my reference claims, that it was the only compilation but there are others now.--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 11:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

29 April 2006

List of "All your base are belong to us" external links

User:InShaneee deleted this page without even offering an opportunity for discussion. I had even marked the page as "in use" and explained that I was in the process of fleshing it out to be more than purely links — I planned to add a considerable amount of narrative explaining the AYB phenomenon and other information. However, it is now protected and I can't even do that. (I admit that I hastily recreated the page outside of DRV at first and added an "inuse" tag to try to discourage its subsequent deletion while I worked on the page, but that's really beside the point right now.) ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:14 (UTC)

• Keep deleted It's like 30 external links...even if there was some content added to the page, does any article really need 30 external links (keep in mind, there's more on the parent article here, too)? --InShaneee 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, if you would have allowed me to work on the article, you would have seen that it was intended to be MUCH more than just links. I pointed this out and you simply ignore it. And yes, in this case this Internet phenomenon does merit a larger number of links due the very nature of the subject. The external links demonstrate its widespread and varied usage on the Internet. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:37 (UTC)
    • "With all due respect", even the best article on wikipedia shouldn't have 30 links in it. --InShaneee 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • In this limited case, the sheer volume of links demonstrates the phenomenon. I agree wholeheartedly that the vast majority of articles don't merit 30 links; however, the vast majority of articles aren't about Internet phenomena. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:45 (UTC)
      • FWIW, there are plenty of featured articles with far more than 30 references. There is no arbitrary cutoff point. Presuming all the external links offer something unique, then I don't have a problem with being integrated into the main article. Pcb21 Pete 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
        • (I meant to exclude references). Keep in mind though that none of these are references...just other places that the animation is mentioned. --InShaneee 21:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Wikipedia is not a repository of links. --Toffile 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. First of all, simple lists of external links are quite clearly speediable under WP:CSD A7. Second, it could not have been expanded, because that's clearly contrary to what the title says it is. Third, the creator violated WP:CIVIL on Shane's talk. --Rory096 20:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• If you're sure it can be more than a list of links, why is it named like a list of links? And why didn't you build it in your userspace and then move it? That's what I do if there's any chance that the article might be speedied, till I have enough there to justify keeping it around. I'd still advise you to go that route if this stays deleted. Just me though. Endorse Deletion ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Should it have been named List of "All your base are belong to us" external links and related exposition instead? I thought it was long enough as-is and honestly didn't think anyone would delete a page tagged as "in use" without at least discussing it first. Silly me. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:43 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If it's 30 external links plus "a considerable amount of narrative explaining the AYB phenomenon", then, since we already have at All your base are belong to us, it's essentially 30 links and some stuff that should be merged to the main article. And we already have List of "All your base are belong to us" computer and video game references and List of "All your base are belong to us" print and electronic references, for god's sake. How much AYBABTUcruft do we need? · rodii · 21:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted / endorse deletion Wikipedia's community standards sometimes might seem vague, with very few actual rules. One of the few true rules we do have is "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links" (quoted from WP:NOT). The creator seems to be defending the article by saying it's not just a list of external links, even though it's obviously titled as one. That makes every bit as much sense as if I protested the deletion of an article called List of things Andrew Lenahan has eaten for breakfast by saying I was really going to make it into an article about the socioeconomic repercussions of the Crimean War. Whatever the article was intended to be, the information can go in the main All Your Base article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted since Wikipedia is not a web directory and there's no use for a whole list of AYBABTU external links, relevant ones should be in the main article and any other ones shouldn't be here. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that ALL of the links are relevant in demonstrating a different facet of the phenomenon. I think that's the point that's being overlooked here. It's not like the vast majority of other articles, where external links all point to slight variations on the main topic. The links were removed from the main article after widespread complaint that the article was just a list of links. So then the links get spawned off to a new page and it is deleted while still under construction, as it were. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 22:08 (UTC)
    • They all demonstrate the phenomenon, but not all of them are needed TO demonstrate the phenonmenon. --InShaneee 23:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy Valid CSD-A3. Am somewhat dissappointed with the resulting mini-edit war over the main AYB article though, with the link to the disputed page being removed four times by User:InShaneee, and added back in three times by User:Brossow, all in one day. Regards, MartinRe 22:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion A3 applies here. If there is a case to be made for this page, I'd recommend Brossow finish a draft in his userspace before posting, providing the context that could keep this article from falling under A3. Until then, under the letter of CSD A3, and the spirit of WP:NOT, this page remains a bad idea. Xoloz 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy Valid speedy deletion under criteria A3. --Allen3 ^talk 23:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse as per User:Starblind
• Endorse deletion - as per Wikipedia policy that this is not a repository of links. FCYTravis 02:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per all the above. Almost worth adding to WP:BAI. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as CSD A3 applies here, as well as WP:NOT. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and recommend Xoloz's advice is taken. Thryduulf 18:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease

Petaholmes deleted the page noting it is the copy of copyrighted page quoted in links, hence copyright violation. Clearly, it is not. I have since recreated the page, since It's impossible to compare the two when one of them doesn't exist anymore. Mikie 15:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since you have re-created the page, DRV is pretty pointless at this point. But please, please do not re-create pages on your own without going through deletion review in the future. A cursory look of the page indicates it is different from the external linked page. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• I've got to agree with Kimchi.sg. There are a lot of deletionists on Wikipedia, and creating a page outside of DRV just encourages them to be more aggressive, thinking that "If I can't get my way this time, I'll game the system and get it later!" At least DRV mollifies them and lets them have their say. Captainktainer 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• There are also a lot of policy wonks who vote to delete stuff that violates policy. The fact that much of this is incessantly recreated may make these people functionally indistinguishable from deletionists. WP:AGF makes it extremely hard to use the word deletionist in such general terms as you do without risking censure. Just zis Guy you know? 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop creating new project pages for the *sole* purpose of bolstering your arguements in the debates. It doesn't make your arguements look better (once people see what your arguements rest on). Also the the initial "policy wonk" page you cited labelled/stereotyped a specific person. That doesn't really help you're case, when you're trying to discourage branding people with labels. Also, threats of censure aren't helpful. If somebody has done something wrong, you should be able to explain what that was, and why, without threats. If anything action with a specific person is warranted (obviously not in this case) you should take the matter up with elsewhere, not here. --Rob 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Policy wonk / process wonk are two terms in very common use on WikiEN-L, perhaps you think I should define them separately every time I use the terms? And are you comfrotable with the blanket labelling of large numbers of editors as "deletionists"? Do you think that reflects WP:AGF? I don't. Whihc is why I explained that, in some cases, removal of content is driven by strong commitment to the project not by some mythical desire to delete. YMMV. Just zis Guy you know? 10:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification: The deleted version of this article was Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease (PBFD) as an apparent copyvio of http://numbat.murdoch.edu.au/caf/pbfd.htm. The recreated version has since been moved to Psittacine beak and feather disease per naming conventions. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Whilst re-creating the page without review was the wrong thing (though understandable), now it has happened lets just use this as an official way to stop (or otherwise) it being speedied under G4. I say this page doesn't look like a copyvio and therefore should be kept. Petros471 18:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• My cursory examination of the page doesn't reveal a glaring copyvio, but I certainly might have missed something. Are there any extended passages that show an uncomfortable similarity? (Note that I'm not a stranger to looking for plagiarism: User:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep. G8 only applies to commercial sources of information. That edu link isn't commercial. It doesn't look close enough to warrant putting on WP:CV. Kotepho 21:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question: why has noone asked Petaholmes to explain why she deleted the article and what she saw as copyvio? Wouldn't it be relevant to judging her deletion of the article? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• The page has been undeleted and cleaned up by someone, and I have added some comments to the talk page. I have also received an email from Dr. Ross Perry with some new relevant information which he wishes me to add. Now, this can not possibly be plagiarism, can it? Mikie 02:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: The page has not been undeleted. It was recreated (by you) at a different title. To date, you remain the only editor to make more than minor formatting changes to the page.
    To your second point, content added with permission is not a copyright violation. However if challenged, the burden falls on you to prove that permission was validly given. I recommend that you copy the full text of the email onto the Talk page to document the permission. And even in that case, please expect some skepticism. We have had cases where a vandal forged such an assertion of release by the copyright holder. Rossami (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Before adding this new relevant information please consider WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. --pgk^(talk) 15:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I got it now. Page was recreated by me, then cleaned up and renamed by someone else. I want everyone to understand that this subject is something of great importance to me and very personal. I do understand that in my frustration and ignorance of Wiki rules I have broken quite a few of them, and I sincerely apologize for that. All I wanted to do is to contribute to this place with what I can. I have every intention of obeying every rule here and the Copyright Law, and I have no problem with ANY discussion and/or requesting backup on the Release of Copyrighted information or articles, but when the page is simply deleted because an admin decides at half past midnight that my writing is a blatant copy of someone else's work, that gets me going, and how. Mikie 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Restore previous edits and splice. --William Allen Simpson 14:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, does not look like a copyvio to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

27 April 2006

The Amazing Racist

The Amazing Racist page was deleted, on the grounds, as far as I understand it, that the Amazing Racist is a non-notable person. The Deletion Talk bit is here : [75]A Google search for "Amazing Racist", quotes included, brings up 58,800 results, Yahoo about 27,800. This page [76] has had 83650 views. I've never seen the original article, but I've created a version of how I think it should look on my user page here : User:TheMadTim. The guy is a lot more notable than some of the entries here on Wikipedia. --TheMadTim 11:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

EDIT : The article should be included. [WP:WEB] - Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - The person in question fulfills this criteria, having been a contributor to a commercial published work.

OR 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. - Do the Google search. You'll see the videos on everything from MySpace to Shoutwire.

[WP:BIO] also states that it can include "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions". You can buy the DVD on Amazon! DVD on sale at Amazon

2nd edit : Why are people saying I hve not given a reason? I have! It fulfills the criteria for inclusion set out in the two wikipedia policies listed above, namely [WP:WEB] and [WP:BIO]. --TheMadTim 09:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3rd go : OK. This article fulfills the criteria for inclusion thusly: This series of sketches has been included on two commercially released DVDs, produced by the National Lampoons. The DVDs are available through mainstream distributors including Amazon [77] [78] There is no set wiki policies governing the inclusion of comedy sketch routines that I am aware of. The article can easily be made in accordance with WP:V. The fact that these sketches are commercially available would normally be accepted as sufficient evidence of noteability. To borrow from WP:NMG, "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" and "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" would all point towards this sketch having the requisite degree of noteability. WP:BIO states that "Notability can be determined by: A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. As this sketch is primarily an established commercial vehicle for a comedian and his publishers to make money, this would indicate that they are not doing this for fun, it is a profitable business which relies upon it's fan base. The movies are listed on imdb here : [79] and [80]. Imdb is listed on [81] as one way of showing noteability of a subject. The comedian who performs these sketches is well known as a live performer at Comedy Store. The subject satisfies WP:V and more than satisfies WP:GT. [82] states : An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). A look at the talk page of Amazing Racist shows a number of people visiting wikipedia looking for this information, but being unable to find it. Furthrmore, the same article states "If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: 1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance". --TheMadTim 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and amend to version shown on user:TheMadTim--TheMadTim 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Valid AFD, closed properly, no new evidence presented. I'm not convinced by Google hits, videoblogging trolls have a high cruft multiple. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. David | Talk 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure absent new and compelling evidence of notability. Unanimous AfD covered subject as well as article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• This is my first time editing and/or posting anything so if I screw it up don't get to mad.
  Back to the subect at hand- The Amazing Racist. When I saw this skit/video clip I thought it was definitely fake, but I came to wikipedia to find out the story behind it. Alas it was not here. Why not? Because it offended someone. I don't see why he can't have a reference page so when I tell people it is all a joke I can have a credible source. I have read others say it is not noteworthy enough to have a entry, let's be honest here, it is! People are lying through their teeth just because the don't want the article posted. And on the issue of obscurity there are much more obscure pages on wikipedia, Anyway I will end this with what someone else said about the issue and it is something I firmly believe, "Censoring the Amazing Racist is foolhardy and against the original mission of Wikipedia- to provide uncensored and factual data to all who request it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtmavs (talk • contribs)
  • Please sign your posts on this and other Talk pages by adding ~~~~ to the end of your comment.

• For your info, it was not deleted because "it offended someone" but because it fails to establish any encyclopaedic notability, as a single sketch by a single comedian. If you want to know the kind of sketch considered independently notable, see Dead Parrot. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Err dude, isn't that sketch only in there because Monty Python sketches have their own category? It's not in wikipedia 'independently', it's in because of it's authors.--TheMadTim 11:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is there - along with other Python sketches - because the sketch itself has achieved independent notability. Many thousands of people can quotye this and other Python sketches verbatim, and the recent bird 'flu epidemic was first seen in the UK in... a parrot! Which prompted even the BBC to mention the Python sketch. Another sketch gave us the generic name of junk email. Just zis Guy you know? 10:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not here to serve as a credible source, it must be based on credible sources. See WP:NOR. Also see WP:AGF, no-one is "lying through their teeth". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted due process was followed, no reason to overturn given. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Sam Blanning^(talk) --CTSWyneken[User talk:CTSWyneken|(talk)]] 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted Unanimously voted to delete in a valid AfD. There would have to be some very strong and verifiable evidence that circumstances have changed since the AfD to overturn it. The nominator's arguments haven't even come close to that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia to read the entry on the Amazing Racist only to find out it had been deleted. I see people here hiding behind talk of process instead of addressing the substance because they can't justify the deletion. For the first time, I'm disappointed in Wikipedia. Anharmyenone 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If anyone still believes that this article was deleted on notability grounds : [83].

"National Lampoon, best known for its "Animal House" and "Vacation" series, claims it reaches nearly 3.5 million college-age students with its books, audio CDs and videos like "Lost Reality 2."". Yup that's 3.5 million! Additionally, "A National Lampoon representative says the company has had an increase in sales partially due to the popularity of Shaffir's clip.It's actually meant to make fun of racist people," says National Lampoon's Noah, who declined to provide his last name."

To say that this is a non noteable work is, quite simply, staggering.

--TheMadTim 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

26 April 2006

Reverend and The Makers

The following text was written by the article's creater, and copied from User talk:JzG#Reverend and The Makers --Rob 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting this page. Reverend and the Makers are an up and coming British band, gaining quite some notoriety in the British music press and in online forums. Surely the very fact that the page has been recreated so many times is testement to their popularity?

Regarding Wikipedia's WP:NMG page - it states that; "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" - Reverend and the Makers have achieved the following criteria:

"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources." - they have toured nationally for years, and have recently been touring with Arctic Monkeys.

"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." - a number of interviews with the band can be found online and in music publications.

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - the band are a major proponent of what the NME call the 'New Yorkshire' scene - indeed, Wikipedia even has a New Yorkshire page, on which the Makers are already listed.

"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." - Their track, 'Heavyweight Champion of the World', is used by Sky TV's Soccer AM program when highlights of previous matches are shown.

Do you not think this is justifiable enough? They meet not 1, but 4 of Wikipedia's own criteria for inclusion. Captmonkey

• Overturn and list on AfD - I can't see the article content, so I'm going by what I do see above, and I ask it be undeleted, unless there's some reason I'm unaware of. JzG seemed to base the deletion on WP:NMG (see both user's talk pages). You can't speedy based on WP:NMG. That's not policy. A claim of notability needs to be made. If made, AFD should settle the question. It seems, even if there wasn't a claim of notability, the author could easily add one now. AFD will then settle whether it's sufficient and verifiable. --Rob 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD - According to the deletion log, this page was deleted for being non-notable and failing WP:NMG. Neither of these are CSD. (That said, this might be a case of WP:SNOW but I can't see the article to be sure.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I refer the hon. gentleman to criterion A7. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But that's not what's in the deletion log. It says non-notable, it should say "CSD A7". Non-notable is not always the same. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • A7 was in the original speedy tag, not copied into the summary field for some reason. But A7 says non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't know about this. The title of A7 appears to have changed recently. It used to be just "Unremarkable people or groups". Actually, I think the new title is somewhat misleading. (Since non-notability itself isn't a reason to speedy delete, but no claim of notability is.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Had there been a credible claim of notability I would have AfDd it per my usual practice. I may be a rouge admin but I am quite conservative when it comes to A7 applied to apparent bandcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 14:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and put up on AfD From what I've seen above, I think it would meet at least one criteria listed on WP:NMG. It may not, but without the article there, there's hardly a way of knowing. Darquis 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and put up on AfD based on the info given, if it checks out, this may be notable enough, and agree that this probably is not a CsD based on music related criteria. However if it (or a substantially similar article under a different name) was previously AfD'ed then it qualifies for CsD under recreation of previously deleted content... was that the case? ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, but relist only if those sources don't check out initially. The NME claim appears to check out, so...--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hi, I am the author of the offending page. I've been asked to cite sources for my claims above, so, here I am. I'm confused - it's a simple, non-offensive page about a band who are about to break through in the UK! Anyhow, to the points raised:
  1. "Have gone on tour" - [84] - here, buy tickets for their forthcoming National UK tour. Or, perhaps you've seen them on the current crazy sell out (tickets going for £200 on eBay) Arctic Monkeys tour as the support act? Here's a BBC review of a gig they did in February - [85] - they even say "This band (Reverend and the Makers) are the ones to watch".
  2. "Been written about online and offline" - Seriously, do a Google search - you'll turn up half a dozen interviews from different sites. The NME said this about them in a recent review, 'Trust us, before long you will worship at the altar of the Reverend. Hallelujah'.
  3. "Become a prominent representative of a notable style or local scene" - the existing, unmolested, Wikipedia article for the burgeoning New Yorkshire musical scene already lists them. The NME coined this term, and used the Makers as an example of one of the bands in the 'scene'. Think back to 'scenes' like Britpop and NWONW.
  4. "Has performed music for media that is notable" - I'll admit that this is a little tenous, but their track, "Heavyweight Champion Of The World" is being used by the Sky TV production, Soccer AM, as backing music to replays of the previous weeks football action. [86]

  Anyways, they're a band that are just on the cusp of good things - this is no garage band playing gigs in deserted pubs - they just played to several thousand people just last night in Hull. It's up to you guys! :) Captmonkey 19:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Regarding you statement "Seriously, do a Google search". Actually, when you make the article, you should have done that, and cited every single reliable source you could. Never assume people will look up missing information, outside the article. It's basically up to you to include relevant material. So, if/when the article is undeleted, be sure to include it. While anybody can do a google search, not all results are useful. Some are just promotional and self-written. It's really up to the article author, to pick out the high quality ones, and include them in the article. While I criticized the deletion of this article, I am certain, that if the article had the relevant information, it would never have been deleted. --Rob 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care overmuch, happy to have it listed on AfD. More effort seems to have gone into pleading the case than went into the article, which is always a bit frustrating. But do note again the comment made by the creator that the band are about to break through in the UK. That was how I read it, too. Bands which are "about to break through" very often don't. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete add the cites. Put on AfD if it still looks dodgy. They're not the only ones to leave the cites for later and get deleted in between. Perhaps the author should have read Wikipedia:Why should I care? first - an easy mistake to make. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Having spot-checked the deleted versions, this certainly seems to have qualified under speedy-delete criterion A7 since the article itself made no claim to notability that I found. Send it to AFD as a disputed speedy-deletion but I'm skeptical about its chances. Some real evidence will have to be presented that this is more than the garage band that the article made it seem. Remember that we don't cover bands that are about to break thru - we cover bands that have broken thru. Rossami (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, a number of criteria in WP:MUSIC are written specifically to include bands lacking mainstream commercial success. Notability<>fame+sales, necessarily. --Rob 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ...but there's no rush. I fully agree with you, but I think the "notability without commercial impact" thing needs to be evaluated by the good old fashioned "test of time". --kingboyk 07:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • "there's no rush" is not what a wiki is about (that's more of a Britanica approach). Also, the test we will evaluate the article by is WP:MUSIC, which, if the creator's claims can be substantiated, the article will pass. --Rob 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Disagree, sorry. There are differing opinions of what wiki is about. Being up-to-the-second up-to-date is not necessarily one of them. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Request: If admins wish to wait the full week before removing "protected deleted" status, can I suggest its undeleted immediately, but to a user-subpage of the creator. That way, he can fix it up properly (maybe get some feedback), before its put back in article space, hopefully avoiding the need for re-deletion. There's no point in AFD voters wasting their time evaluating the old version, if its going to be substantially changed shortly. --Rob 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• List at AFD (where I shall recommend Delete) As a popular music buff, I'm usually quite lenient on band articles. However, having the luxury of being able to look at the article, it's main claim to notability is that the band are touring as support to the currently very fashionable Arctic Monkeys. They don't even have a record deal. I think at a bare minimum a new band ought to have a record deal to be notable. (There are of course exceptions, such as when the members are already notable, or historical bands who became notable through later activities of their members or some other reasons.) --kingboyk 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Changed from keep deleted to relist. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is DRV, not AFD. So, the issue is whether the article qualified for a speedy under a7. A claim was made. If you contest it, you should take up the matter on an AFD. You said "it's main claim to notability is...". Hence, you have conceded the speedy was invalid, since you conceded a claim was made. The rest of your sentence will be relevant at the AFD. It is fundamentally wrong for admins to ignore policy, and remove content, without community consensus. --Rob 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, you got me on this one. I was thinking about this in bed last night (sad I know!) and I realised I'd snookered myself somewhat on this point. You're absolutely right. I wouldn't have speedy deleted it. I will therefore amend my recommendation. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. No need to relist as even the original version of the article indicates that the group passes WP:MUSIC by virtue of its verifiable national tour gigs. Those who have speedy-deleted this article in the past don't seem to have conducted any research (which would have confirmed the assertion of notability in the original article) but rather assumed that their own ignorance was an indication that the article should be deleted. Articles about bands should not in general be speedy deleted where they contain such assertions of notability, Nor should they be listed for deletion where, as in this case, research turns up evidence to confirm the assertion. The Reverend and his band have supported sellout gigs featuring the hugely popular Sheffield band Arctic Monkeys [87] (BBC) and have been confirmed as main support band for the Monkeys' upcoming tour [88] (NME), and you can buy tickets for some of their April-June gigs online through ticketweb. --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Why is this page still protected deleted? Even if the page warranted deletion under a7, it never should have been protected (especially with more then a month since the previous deletion). A core principal of Wikipedia is people can create articles immediately, *without* a prior bureaucratic approval process. Unless there is attack content, copyvio, or a strong AFD consensus that no article under the name should exist; protection should not be used in cases such as this. When using protection, one should always ask, what is so harmful that we need protection from. Many newbies confronted with such protection, will simply give up, and go away, which is quite unfortunate. If people want an encyclopedia they can't edit, they can go visit Britanica. --Rob 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• i have drawn it by myself using a common WP picture, pls undelete.--Nerd 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, images cannot be undeleted. I'm unsure whether a copy would be available from one of WP's many mirrors. Xoloz 16:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• If he still has a copy he can reupload it and properly tag it as self created perhaps. (General comment, I'm not familiar with the image nor have I checked the deletion history). --kingboyk 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

23 April 2006

Userboxes and Userbox

Those pages were deleted, as were their talk pages, and protected afterwards. The issue I have is that the redirects run in loops (in one case, at least, the talk page redirects to the main article) and the redirects really ought to be running to WP:Userbox and WP:Userboxes, since this is a Wikipedia specific term. Alternatively, we ought to be saying on Userbox that this is a Wikipedia specific term and then redirecting to WP:Userbox. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) This is not an undeletion request. This is a redirection request.

• This has been the subject of a recent DRV debate. I brought the odd result to closer Brenneman's attention, and he has said he would attend to it. For the record, I support the redirect to projectspace as reasonable. Xoloz 19:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all! WP:ASR wikipedia specific terms should not be in the main space at all, even as redirects (unless with the WP:xxx notation). We've had this discussion before I think, let's not do it again. Why can userboxes just go away and die somewhere? --Doc ^ask? 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I indicated above you, Doc, we have in fact had this discussion before. Since redirects are cheap and for convenience's sake, one wonders why anyone would spend anytime arguing against any even remotely useful ones. Xoloz 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Because, I don't think we should allow redirects from article to project space unless prefixed with 'WP'. I know there are others, but I would vote to delete them too. (And, in any case, userboxes are not 'remotely useful'. --Doc ^ask? 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, there are hundreds of others, many of which receive a huge amount of use every single day. Where would we be without NPOV? Your revolutionary proposal for mass-deleting well-established, useful, and harmless redirects should be formally proposed with a new policy if you want it to ever happen, not just assumed on a whim without any consensus support. And if it's userboxes that you don't think are useful, you should be voting to delete Wikipedia:Userboxes, not the redirects to that page. Once the userboxes page is deleted, deleting the redirects will be a natural side-effect. Why be sneaky about it? -Silence 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• On the one hand this was a work-to-order where I did nothing beyond the minimum required. On the other hand, the current state makes no sense but I'd felt it was a harmless enough glitch that it could wait until I archived my talk page and cleaned up everything else I'd forgotten to do. On the third hand I was hoping that by that time no-one would care about userboxes and that everyone would be arguing about if the onion tied to one's belt should be purple or brown. - brenneman^{L} 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's easier for users that was. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Purple, 'cause it's prettier!!! Xoloz 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per WP:ASR --pgk^(talk) 06:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, WP:ASR is not a speedy deletion criterion. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on RFD. Process is important. "Cross-namespace redirect" and WP:ASR are not speedy deletion criteria. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. They already went through RfD, as I recall, and were deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Let's try to keep this project focused and article namespace reasonably clear. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted. Shouldn't be in article space. David | Talk 13:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted, as further debate would be inconclusive, and it was previously deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both deleted- cross-namespace redirects are NOT to be kept. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per it's easier to get to the userboxes if they are. Crazyswordsman 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• There indeed was a Review on this recently; like Xoloz I am a bit surprised it was closed the way it was. Some remarks:
  1. Cross-namespace redirects on WP are not only allowed, some are encouraged. Every WP: and WT: -style redirect sits in the Main space and points to a page in the Wikipedia space. These are usually non-controversial. The governing guideline is Wikipedia:Shortcut.
  2. There are also a smaller number of Main→WP redirects which are not of the WP: -style. Examples are NPOV, Wikipedia is not paper, Disambiguation, No personal attacks, Assume good faith, ArbCom, and CotW. There seems to be some disagreement about them; Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Precedents#Should redirects to other spaces be kept? suggests that their suitability be determined on a case-by-case basis.
  3. Bearing in mind the general trend to keep redirects to high-traffic WP space pages, especially those known by a particular catch phrase or term, it may not be unreasonable to keep, say, one page as a redirect; perhaps Userboxes→Wikipedia:Userboxes. I do not think having all sorts of variations is either needed or desirable.
  4. Related matters: a) original RfDs here b) an aside: the comment above that cross-space redirects are never speedy candidates is untrue—Main→User space redirects are speedy candidates (R2).

Whatever the outcome of this review, I do hope that no one relists this yet once more: it's been discussed way more than any such triviality has any right to be discussed. Please respect whatever consensus forms here. —Encephalon 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong undelete as redirect. (And list at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if anyone seriously thinks this should be deleted, since speedy-deletion is obviously inappropriate policy abuse regardless.) This is a very useful and practical redirect to have, much like CotW and the countless other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia editor projects and activities, and there's next to no possibility of it being searched for by someone looking for something other than the Wikipedia project, since "userbox" is not a common word, phrase, or abbreviation (unlike the vast majority of other cross-namespace redirects to Wikipedia, like disambiguation, a real word, NPOV, a valid abbreviation, and assume good faith, a not-uncommon phrase). Moreover, it's truly hilarious to invoke WP:ASR as evidence for cross-namespace redirects being unacceptable, considering that "WP:ASR" is itself a cross-namespace redirect!! ("WP:" is technically part of the article namespace, not the Wikipedia namespace, but is tolerated as a matter of convenience.) Furthermore, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references itself makes no mention of redirects of this sort being a bad thing, and, for the final nail in the coffin, here is a list of cross-namespace redirects which point to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: Mention of Wikipedia in articles, Avoid self-references, WP:NSR, Avoid self-reference, WP:SELF, Avoid self references, Avoid self reference, WP:ASR. :) And if that wasn't enough, here's a list of cross-namespace redirects to this very page, Wikipedia:Deletion review: WP:VFU, WP:VfU, Votes for undeletion, VfU, WP:RFU, WP:DRV, Deletion Review, WP:Deletion Review, VFU. This deletion is a farce, completely unjustifiable by any policy, guideline, convention, or purpose beneficial to Wikipedia, and should be reversed for the same reasons a deletion of ArbCom or WP:V would be. -Silence 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Hardly notable enough to be even mentioned anywhere in the main space. --InShaneee 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Er, are you aware that these were redirects, not articles? Countless quasi-noteworthy Wikipedia projects have cross-namespace redirects; their point is not to assert notability, but to provide a useful shortcut for users who aren't willing or able to type out lengthy titles like "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" (NPOV) and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones" (WP:TROP). -Silence 01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - This is absolutely stupid. The only acceptable cross namespace redirects in mainspace begin with WP:, period. This is merely a matter of convenience. And guess what, there already is a WP:UBX. It's simple common sense; we have to keep the encyclopedic content and the non-encyclopedic project content separate. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no particular opinion in this debate but your absolutist statement about cross-namespace redirects is untrue. NPOV and be bold are among our oldest such redirects. Those (and probably many others) are not considered at all controversial and would require a considerable amount of pointless work to change. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Cyde is demonstrating nothing here but his lack of knowledge of how cross-namespace redirects work, and always have worked, in Wikipedia. Literally hundreds of such pages exist for just about every popular Wikipedia: page in existence, including both tangential WikiProjects and side-projects and central, high-usage policy and guideline pages. Such redirects are not only allowed, but encouraged. This speedy-deletion is hilariously out-of-process and hypocritical; there is no substantial difference between WP: redirects and other types of redirects, and the "WP:" designation is nothing but a matter of convention to make it easier to remember shortcuts from the article space to the "Wikipedia:" space. -Silence 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect As per Encephalon, Silence and Xoloz Darquis 08:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Global_Resource_Bank_Initiative

Come on whats wrong with this article? I have started work on Wikipedia recently and am a big fan as a user. Would like to get more involved (and will be, belive me) tried to put down this article after a original article about GRB which had been on Wiki for many years (not written by me) was deleted some time ago. Yes that article was to be improved I agree but not deleted? And this one is totally correct and usefull for Wiki users I belive...It looks like the delete maffia is destroing the core idea that articles should have a chance to develop if they are not totally illegal, nonsens or spam.

11:17, 22 April 2006 Redvers deleted "Global Resource Bank Initiative" (CSD-G4 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank)

• Undelete. Put it back on, its good info...--Swedenborg 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I was the one who tagged it as a CSD-G4 with the added bonus of "admin, please check previous version for clear G4" which I'd have to assume meant it matched.  RasputinAXP  c 13:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to AfD. There has been additions to the article since it was last AfDed that make it worthy of a second hearing, the version as it was prior to the AfD is here. It was previously deleted as original research/vanity, and I haven't checked any of the additional information to see if it has the same problems, but I don't think it will harm to spend another week at AfD. Thryduulf 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That version looks to be identical to the one reposted.  RasputinAXP  c 21:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Changes made to this article (which is being constantly reposted under various titles by User:Swedenborg) haven't altered the fundamental reasons it was originally deleted for: original research and vanity. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf. If he can make out a sufficient, anyone at AfD might; that provides basis for a re-evaluation in itself. Xoloz 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD per Thryduulf and Xoloz. JoshuaZ 16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. What additions? There's a lot of vague assertions that "people have been talking about something like this", but no evidence whatsoever that anyone has paid any attention to these people. Valid G4, why should AfD have to waste time on it again? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A little bit of paraphrasing and other forms of hand waving do not address the core problem identified by the AfD of the article being original research. Come back when some reliable sources can be provided for the material. --Allen3 ^talk 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Valid G4 and valid (though low-participation) original AfD which correctly identified the Original Research problem with this article. David | Talk 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Fight the "delete maffia"!--TheMadTim 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

22 April 2006

Simon Strelchik

• First - Keep.
• Second - Keep, by default.
• Third - Speedy Delete.

There has never been an AFD that showed consensus to delete this article and I'm not seeing a CSD that this falls under. I suggest that it should be merged into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Kotepho 04:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me like it's a bad idea to delete something because it's a vandal target, but at the same time I understand that the presence of a bunch of POV pushers can make a proper AFD very difficult. Restore and merge seems like a very reasonable solution based on the AFDs, so I'll go with it.-Polotet 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• The second AfD was so thoroughly sock infested that any meaningful outcome was impossible. I wouldn't object to a temporary undeletion to allow a merge with Simon Strelchik becoming a redirect (I fear it will need to be protected). Thryduulf 11:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should clarify that I support Curps' actions fully, imho they are a good example of a good application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion endorsed The VaunghWatch people are a known group of vigorous POV-promoters. Any debate clean of sockpuppets has supported the deletion of similar material (there have been at least two relatively clean discussions of such content at DRV.) While not ideally-in-process, Curps action was in response to DRV precedent and reached the right result on the merits in a case where process was being deliberately undermined by a specific faction. I will support Curps' administrative discretion in this case. Xoloz 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and Merge as suggested. Numerous precedents. David | Talk 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary restore and merge per Thryduulf. I think the consensus among non-sockpuppets in the 2nd AfD (the last one with any real debate) was for merging, but given the propensity for abuse by the huge sockfarm I think leaving the history around once the merge is done will just invite endless reverts. I volunteer to perform the merge; I have no particular view pro or con Simon Strelchik and I've become familiar with the topic by now, so if it's restored, someone please let me know and I'll start merging it. Mangojuice 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, last AfD was a sockfest and my attempt to have a proper AfD was disrupted (along with the entire AfD process, thanks to the use of a miusconfigured open proxy) by a sock of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curps did the Right Thing. Just zis Guy you know? 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain this reasoning? If someone AFDs George Bush and Squidward wants to have fun with the debate we will just speedy George Bush? Kotepho 20:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, because unlike the subject of this article George Bush has succeeded in being elected to a significant office, and the article is edited by many people with no history of sockpuppet usage. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary Restore/Merge Merge with New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election , but delete the history, or the sock puppetry will get revert happy again.Darquis 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The second AFD was a sockpuppet fest -- of PROVEN sockpuppets. Kill it dead. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Calton. Ardenn 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete First AfD seems clear and relatively sockfree; and that was in March. I don't think many things are WP:POINT, but the other two nominations seem to be. Maybe it should be merged, but that decision I'll take when I can see it. Septentrionalis 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Failed candidates generally do not get their own articles, and the one claim of independent notability was not verified. Note that VaughanWatch is up to 52 sockpuppets so far, and has deteriorated into mostly making personal attacks on user talk pages. I can see no reason why Simon Strelchik should not be listed in New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and have no opinion on the best way to achieve that outcome. Thatcher131 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Besides the substantive issue of notability, which I believe attaches to major party candidates for Federal office in Canada, I am very suspicious of rapid multiple AfD nominations (WP:POINT is relevant here) followed by a speedy deletion despite very obvious lack of consensus. The votes and comments in the first and third AfDs typically showed reasoning and did not look like typical rapid, vote with no comment type puppetfests. Allegations that the discussions were invalid due to sockpuppet invasion need to be proven (e.g., CheckUser and similar tools). I don't believe there has even been a consensus to delete this or other major party candidate articles. MCB 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Checkuser was used; VaughanWatch has 52 known sockpuppets and many of them were involved in this AFD. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If checkuser was used, WHY was I banned? I have nothing to do with all this. And I looked at checkuser and I didn't see my name once. I'm really ticked off that I worked really hard on my wikipedia edits and then you banned me. Gsinclair 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete, agree with MCB. Gsinclair 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• As I said in the original debates, the current consensus on unelected candidates is to merge them into a single party list, because that's the best way anybody's found so far to balance the competing interpretations of notability. If VaughanWatch's known socks are discounted in this case, the consensus was clearly in favour of doing that, but it's also clear that the VaughanWatch sockpuppets aren't going to let this have an honest, undisrupted AFD (cf. Elliott Frankl, where even after a merge consensus was established they simply ignored it.) And while the merge solution isn't ideal, until we can figure out a better consensus position we're kind of stuck with it. My primary vote every time has been merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; I still stand by that. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• What you said was "Either keep or merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal". Gsinclair 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note I recounted the first AfD, discarding the IP from Bell Canada and 2 of the 3 VaughanWatch socks. That leaves us with 5 keep, 2 merge and 3 delete. However, 2 of the keeps were predicated on being able to verify that he was a founding member of Save the children; IIRC, this was never established per WP:RS, so those votes change to merge; plus one of the keep votes changed to delete in the second AfD. That gives 2 keep, 4 merge and 4 delete. Thatcher131 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment You guys have gone too far. People are afraid to make edits to this deletion review now, not to mention the other related articles, because everybody ends up banned. As Simon_Cursitor puts it, "the attitude appears to be that, no matter how many edits you have made, the criterion for blocking is whether or not your view agrees with that of the Cabal". Look at my talk page. You should unban the people that are not proven sockpuppets and have an open debate. Gsinclair 09:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't gotten involved here, and for obvious reasons, but this is simply too rich. It is impossible to have an "open debate" on anything related to this Vaughan stuff because as soon as you allow for one, you get 52 socks popping up accusing actual editors of being socks and generally disrupting the operation of this service. All you need to do Gsinclair is take a look at some of these AfD's, for Strelchik, for Frankl and so on and you'll see what I mean. We tried, since January, to make things work, only to be taken advantage of by the VaughanWatch Gang. - pm_shef 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• This figure of "52 socks" is entirely made up. And within this figure includes my login and many other people. I looked on checkuser and nowhere does it say this figure. What has happened is that you have taken one vandal, and painted everyone else with the same brush. Gsinclair 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Joe says in the second AfD that his being a founder of Free the Children (NOT Save the Children) is cited by the Canadian Jewish News and by the CBC. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The two references are somewhat unreliable:

1) The Canadian Jewish News article is essentially interviews of three candidates -- want to bet that their information comes courtesy of the candidates themselves?

2) The CBC ref is a candidates' information page, and I'd bet folding money all the information in it was supplied by the candidates. Certainly the photos of Strelchik and Kadis used in both articles are identical (Maybe Reale sprung for the quantity discount at the photographer's). --Calton | Talk 07:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Calton should know what WP:V says: ""Verifiability" does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. GSinclair 08:12 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• 'Also I looked at the Checkuser page, and some of the people labelled sockpuppets weren't actually found by checkuser to be such. This includes CasanovaAlive and Munckin. I count 9 Keeps therefore, check the page yourself here. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  They don't care, they block anyone that they don't like or that votes the wrong way. Gsinclair 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• This user is a confirmed sock puppet of VaughanWatch, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely.

• Who's unsigned comment is this above? I'm not a "confirmed sock puppet", nobody even asked me. I'm guessing the same thing happened to some of these other people. I looked at checkuser and you had like 8 people or so found as sockpuppets, some of them in the list below, but then you banned everybody that wasn't on wikipedia for like 2 years. You should unblock them, so maybe they can say something in this debate. Gsinclair 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Blink484 (talk · contribs)
• Aufbauten (talk · contribs)
• Leotardo (talk · contribs)
• Macredi (talk · contribs)
• Slendidlydelicious (talk · contribs)
• UndergroundRailroad (talk · contribs)
• Moonslight (talk · contribs)
• GoldRhymer (talk · contribs)

• And of the ones you claim not to be sockpuppets:

• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs) - Indefinitely blocked: Nineteen edits total, all related to the VaughnMess
• Munckin (talk · contribs) -Indefinitely blocked: Caught using a misconfigured open proxy while trying to expunge the third Strelchik AFD from the AFD page [89]. One of the reports on him included this warning

• If you look at the accounts Mackensen blocked through his log, you will see that VaughanWatch's socks tend to have 50-100 edits (mostly minor copyedits) all on the same day, then they go dormant until they start posting on Simon Strelchik AfDs or other Vaughan issues. Munchkin looks very much the same. Thatcher131 11:16, 21 April 2006 Hmm, that behavior pattern looks familiar.

• So they make a lot of edits, that means they're the enemy? You guys need to get a life. Gsinclair 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't imagine why anyone would think they were among the 50+ sockpuppets of VaughnWatch. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment You can't even spell it correctly. There are people banned all over, and yet you're so sure of it all. Look what somebody wrote on my page: "For obvious reasons, to do with not being blocked, I am unable to help you. You will, however, note on my own Talk page that the attitude appears to be that, no matter how many edits you have made, the criterion for blocking is whether or not your view agrees with that of the Cabal." Gsinclair 09:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Many people primarily voted Keep in the AfD:

• Samaritan (talk · contribs)
• Brisvegas (talk · contribs)
• Bearcat (talk · contribs)
• Hyperbole (talk · contribs)
• Luigizanasi (talk · contribs)
• MCB (talk · contribs)
• NDP Johnny (talk · contribs)
• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs)
• Munckin (talk · contribs)
• VaughanWatch (talk · contribs)

GSinclair 08:12 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm, 2 sockpuppets and their sockpuppeteer -- already pointed out -- are on that list, provided by a brand-new user with eight edits. Say, isn't one of the definitions of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? --Calton | Talk 08:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• You just call everybody a sockpuppet, don't you? But do you have any proof of that? No. I checked each of those, and none of them were sockpuppets. And none were found out to be by checkuser. Gsinclair 09:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Further note: NDP Johnny (talk · contribs) was at the time a new user, who was solicited to vote on the 2nd AfD by yet another VaughnWatch sockpuppet (VWSP) CanadianElection (talk · contribs) [90]. I noticed this because GSinclair 5th and 7th edits were a solicitation to vote here, made directly under the note by the VWSP.
• Son, the general rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Just some advice. --Calton | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't be a bully. Gsinclair 09:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• In the block above you have, I think, conclusive proof of why Curps was right. There is simply no chance of discussing this objectively due to VaughanWatch's determination to keep this article (maybe VaughanWatch is Strelchik, who knows?) and above all his contempt for Wikipedia. This is beyond farce and well into "screw you". Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• VaughanWatch is the name of a website which publishes partisan views on local politics in Vaughan; Strelchik appears to be one of VW's endorsed candidates, but he's not directly involved in the site AFAIK. Most of us following this matter have been operating from the assumption that VaughanWatch and his socks were Paul DeBuono, the president of the organization, and not Strelchik himself. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're also misrepresenting my vote; I pretty consistently communicated each time that my preference was to merge into a party candidates list, per the existing precedent on unelected Canadian political candidates. Bearcat 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• You communicated "Either keep or merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal". Gsinclair 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete It was obviously inappropriate for user:JzG to rule Speedy Keep on an article that he nominated for deletion, without any discussion on the AfD outside of his own contributions. The AfD was up for a only a little over an hour, and had already survived 2 AfDs. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit was less than an hour ago, at 02:48. Thirty edits, with the first 29 a series of minor, rapid-fire, and occasionally self-reverting edits. I find this a wee bit suspicious. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no stake in this. Just count the Keep votes, that's what I did. Doublesuede 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Uh huh. Less than an hour here, and you zeroed straight in on this issue, did all the research, and found exactly the right place to post your utterly unbiased results. Right. Of course. Oh, and to correct your statement, one of the AfD's this article "survived" is the one whose integrity we are discussing right now. Rhetoric teachers, we now have GFPL-licensed example of "Begging the question" for you, available right here. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User blocked indefinitely as a Vaughan sock. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Immediately semi-protect the AFD and the article. I can't make any sense of above arguements. Vandalism and sockpuppets are never a reason for deletion. --Rob 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is, however, a valid concern about a legitimate discussion taking place. The level of sockpuppetry is almost unbelievable. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion As if three afds weren't enough. At least some of the sockpuppets have been shut down. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Guys this article should be here, i'm surprised it isn't. It survived two keep votes in like two months, and then gets killed after a debate that lasts 1 hour and 15 minutes with only one person commenting. GoinHome 10:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. A separate article is not necessary, but the content is useful on that page and a speedy deletion was out of order. A redirect is certainly necessary. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 @ 20:25 UTC
• Comment I agree that the speedy deletion was out of order, for the first and second AfD voted to Keep. The solution though is to follow the consensus and relist. GoinHome 11:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

21 April 2006

Category:User kon

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_27#Template:User_kon

and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_26#Category:User_kon

Although the Tfd pointed to the Cfd and vice versa the outcome was inconsistent, template kept, category deleted. Template:User kon(edit talk links history) has now more users, and maybe Template:Catfd(edit talk links history) can help to avoid further conflicts with WP:CDP section 3. -- Omniplex 18:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and restore. Makes sense to have a category linked to by a template that was kept in a debate. Fetofs ^Hello! 22:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn a category that is fed by a template shouldn't be deleted like that unless the template is also deleted. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and restore. I'm the creator of the mentioned category and template. --minghong

SilentHeroes

See AfD debate here

Update: The AfD-debate above is not of any value since it's NOT regarding the page in question. It's regarding an old version of the page that for instance I didn't submit.

This page was deleted even though the new page was a complete new setup and was NOT the original one brought back. If a page is deleted, how can ever a proper page be added at that address if admins keeps deleting and protecting the new, proper, page?

The page contained a full range of info, screenshots and misc about the mod SilentHeroes. Several other mods, with much worse pages, are being keeped, but this one is continiusly attacked. It's not enough one editor wrote 'Death to Sweden' as the original Delete-message? Very bad taste and wikipedia should be above this kind of behavior.Zarkow 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, policy was followed here. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore, the new article is enough to merit at least a relist. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, policy wasn't followed. I'm sorry, but you are confused, and I understand why. The page above is refering to the OLD page, NOT the NEW page. They are COMPLETELY different. Is there any rules against adding new pages with valuable content after a (in editors taste) a lacking page was deleted? If so, how can ever a page be added (submitted) after a deletion? Zarkow 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Old page? New page? Sorry, I think I am a bit confused then. Looking through the deletion log, I see one deletion. What is this second page you refer to? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OH, I see the issue now. Sorry, I was thinking that the AfD above referred to this deleted page. Sorry about that, I didn't notice that pesky space. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist it wasn't CSD G4. --Eivind^t@c 09:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist if we must, but in my view no mod is actually notable - and certianly not to the extent of this large an article. Just zis Guy you know? 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I thank you for your support, but regarding your wish not to list any mods at all: mods both extent the original game and in some cases superseeds the original game in size and or popularity. Don't forget that CounterStrike is still a mod to Half Life. Zarkow 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think you'll find that I woudl consider the encyclopaedia improved without either of those ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Relist Some third-party mods are notable (for example GMod for Half-Life 1/2 and Red Orchestra (game mod), although not entirely sure about this one) and it does deserve a second chance. Sasquatch t|c 03:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Sasquatch. There are, apparently, around 10,000 people playing this mod, and more than 11,000 Google hits indicate a certain threshold of notability. At the very least let's see what the proposed page is so we can judge for ourselves.Captainktainer 09:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

20 April 2006

Cool (African philosophy)

The AFD (found here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cool (African philosophy)) was closed by Mailer Diablo as "uhhhhh...no consensus". After reviewing the discussion, I would have closed this as a delete (with a slight merge into Cool (aesthetic)), as the 19 editors who actually cited Wikipedia rules (it's an acknowledged POV fork, it's basically unverified, it's original research) agreed, with the reasons to keep consisting of 2 unfounded and rude speedy keep votes accusing the nominator of bad faith (no actual reason to keep the article), and 4 other fairly unconvincing keep votes (in order: creator of the article, someone who doesn't really get WP:NOR or WP:V, one with no actual reason to keep (just an attempt to defend the two who voted speedy keep), and one that states "worthy of an article", but doesn't say why). Oh, and a joke vote from an anon that says "Such a delightful example of very impressive and quite meaningless gobbledegook should not be lost to mankind".

I would have deleted this, and I think it really should have been closed as such. I'd like to suggest overturn the original 'no consensus' decision and delete. Proto||type 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Can I suggest it's pointless running this debate separately from the below debate about African Aesthetic? David | Talk 12:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Am I being dim or isn't this a different article that POV forked its way from the one you mentioned? Proto||type 12:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Same article, different article, merged article or whatever, it's essentially the same debate. David | Talk 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I believe it's useful to discuss this Afd closure, here. It's related, but really a seperate issue. I personally don't agree with closing it as a "no consensus"- consensus was clear that this should not be a seperate article. However, as one involved in the discussion, I realize I'm not neutral on this issue. I'd like people's inputs on whether there is something there other than a "no consensus". Friday (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• PS. My "vote" is overturn and redirect or (less good) delete. Friday (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Consensus was there and clear. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Proto. The balance of substantive discussion was that this article is straight original research; removing the unsourced text leaves an empty article. It is an acknowledged POV fork, and the only bit worth keeping is the intro, which could go in BJAODN. I can't say I blame Stifle, mind, since the debate was a mess. Just zis Guy you know? 15:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure I'm going to assume, in closer's favor, that he found reason to discount several delete votes. My perception of this request is also altered by its having arisen in response to the related one below. Xoloz 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. AfD may not be a vote but there was clearly no consensus to delete. If in doubt, don't delete. We should rightly be reluctant to throw out the good faith opinions of editors on the grounds that they did not cite a particular rule to justify their decision. David | Talk 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe the closer was discounting delete votes for some reason, but we cannot tell this from looking at how it was closed. In tricky cases, I'd really prefer people to explain their reasoning as best they can. Also, due to specific implementation details of the MediaWiki software, deleting and redirecting aren't technically the same thing. This should not mean that we always count delete and merge votes differently - here the reasons given by the merge crowd and the delete crowd had some overlap. I myself am a fence-sitter on the merge/delete issue - ideally, I want the history to be kept in case there's merging to be done. (I already attempted some merging) The thing there was clearly no consensus for was this continuing to be an independant article, and it would be a shame to close it by keeping it seperate. Friday (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, of course. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There were also the ones who wanted this merged, and unless they say otherwise they count against deletion. This was a messy AFD, and a "no consensus" closure does seem within reasonable bounds. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Computerjoe's talk 07:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete based on WP:V and WP:RS issues. FCYTravis 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Guettarda 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure because I think the "no consensus" finding is pretty reasonable, and because I think there should be a much higher standard to overturn a "no consensus" or "keep" decision than to overturn a deletion.Cheapestcostavoider 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Proto and JzG. I should say that I disagree with Cheapestcostavoider; I think deletion review ought only to bear out what the community thinks ought to have been the disposition of a given AfD (in view of the comments already made at the AfD page), irrespective of what decision the community contemplates overturning and irrespective of the discretion of the closing admin (that is, except in such cases as DRV is unclear, the decision of the original closing admin ought to be wholly discounted). Dbiv, inter al., is certainly correct that our presumption is generally toward "keep", and that we ougntn't to discount "keep" "votes" that raise valid arguments but fail to include an otherwise pro forma WP:XYZ reference, but I think that it is eminently clear that the "delete" position is supported, in any event, by stronger reasoning. I do think a "no consensus" closure seems reasonable (and I'd expressed prior to the close of the AfD that I was altogether happy not to have to be the one to sort through the mess), and, so, were the standard of review abuse of discretion, for example, I would endorse closure. It is my belief that DRV ought to constitute a de novo review (not of the actual deletion question, in most cases, but only of the proper adjudgment to have been made apropos of the consensus developed in response to that question), and so I think it is appropriate for us to conclude that "delete" was in order here. Joe 03:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that you believe DRV should involve itself in de novo review, but ample precedent provides that this is not what we are here to do. DRV is not to be used to reargue a deletion debate. Xoloz 17:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the deletion review should absolutely be conducted under an abuse of discretion/clearly erroneous standard for decisions to keep with deletions reviewed de novo. As I've said in the past, this would allow for a decision to be overturned where the administrator did something like overlook a demonstrated copyvio or ignored a unanimous consensus in favor of deletion. Otherwise the presumption in favor of keeping an article means little to nothing and we may as well let people re-nominate articles immediately after closure, which would obviously be a terrible policy. You should only get one bite at the apple for deletion.Cheapestcostavoider 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment With respect to Xoloz's comment, I intended to make clear that I do not believe DRV should recapitulate and open anew the deletion debate; it should open anew how properly the deletion ought to have been closed (perhaps a distinction without a difference, but I think not). We should review the initial AfD in order to determine what consensus, if any, had developed, irrespective of the decision of the closing admin (although Cheapest certainly raises valid arguments in favor of the contrary position; in the end, I think our assumptions of good faith must lead us to believe that DRV would not be abused in the fashion of which Cheapest writes, though certainly this may be pie-in-the-sky thinking on my part). Joe 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Joe's argument here is much better than Xoloz's, for practical reasons. If we don't use DRV to try to find the best answer to an afd, it's not very useful. The "no consensus" is not unreasonable- it's definitely the easiest answer. But, the question here is, can we do better? Can we analyze more carefully and find a better answer? By saying DRV is only about blatant mistakes in closing, we're not doing the best we can for our content. By placing a high burden to changing an Afd closure, we're making the whole system far more random than it ought to be. We're basically saying, whichever admin happens to come along at the right time and close the debate gets far more weight to their opinion than to anyone else's. I fail to see how anyone could argue that this randomness is a good thing compared to closure by consensus of multiple editors. In this case, it may not matter- this DRV looks like a "no consensus". But as a matter of principle, I do not believe for a second that the opinion of the person who happened to close the Afd should get more weight than anyone else's. Friday (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure christ this is turning into a fucking clown parade. - FrancisTyers 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm. The closest thing I see here to clowning are unhelpful comments like yours. Is there any meaning we can glean from your remark? My best guess is that you appear to be saying "This is complicated and time-consuming, let's not bother with it." If that's how you feel, fine, nobody's making you participate in the deletion review. But why make disparaging remarks about people who think there might be a better answer here than just slapping on a "no consensus"? Friday (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  I find Francis Tyers' comments more enlightening than Zoe's somewhat glib "of course" comment accompanying her vote -- as though it's a no-brainer, when, clearly, the votes thus far indicate otherwise. "Clown parade" in my book in the sense that the "African philosophy" "African aesthetic" DRs on this page are because a group of editors decided to make a mockery of the AfD process and Wiki procedures, completely circumventing both to accomplish illegal obliterations of two articles and, in the second case, making the title of one a redirect to a wholly inappropriate subject. The result is a title related to a complex aspect of traditional African cultural values redirects the reader to an article on Western pop culture. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. From the look of things (including the vote so far, which seems to support FT's view), I'd say his assessment is certainly closer to the mark. deeceevoice 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I almost wrote, "At this point who cares?" But I've come to believe this is an important matter on procedural grounds. The precipitous deletion of this article by User: Zoe -- just as in the case of "African aesthetic" -- should not be upheld. It was accomplished without discussion or proper process, in defiance an AfD finding. Admins should not be encouraged to do as Zoe has done -- defy the official result of an AfD, going on to delete the contents of the page -- and then, in this case, making it a redirect to a wholly inappropriate article. Bad business that. Endorse closure. Deeceevoice 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  Deeceevoice, I don't understand - you want Cool (African philosophy) and African aesthetic to both be kept, as separate articles? I can't agree with doing anything on purely procedural grounds - procedures exist to serve the goal of writing an encyclopedia, not to supersede it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. The article should not have been deleted, and it certainly should not have been merged with "Cool (aesthetic)." Ideally, IMO, the article text should be merged with "African aesthetic," once the undelete is accomplished. It certainly has no business being merged with an article on Western pop culture. deeceevoice 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So, if it should be merged "once the undelete is accomplished," why not skip the undelete, and just merge the text? Do you just need a copy of it? I don't care at all about what should have happened, only about where we go from here. Let's not stand on ceremony. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• We already know for sure that the deletion of this by Zoe is not going to stand, no matter how the DRV comes out. That's a done deal. Shortly after she deleted it, I asked her to undelete, and she did, remember? Bringing up what you see as past wrongdoings isn't helpful to us moving forward. Friday (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  Zoe may have undeleted the article, but it is still blanked. Further, it continues as a redirect to "Cool (aesthetic)." Nothing whatsoever has been done to correct that egregious act. deeceevoice 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  The redirect is not a matter to discuss here. It's being discussed on the talk page. Friday (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete (1) Out of 29 votes, only 6 voted for "keep". (2)Article is a POV fork & original research (3) There is no need to keep two articles with the same content. Deeceevoice admitted that she already created African aesthetic with the informations from Cool (African philosophy) "The information from "Cool (African philosophy)" is now it in its proper context, in an article on dealing with the underlying cultural ethos of many traditional African societies. ... Further, I intend to use additional information from this article (in addition to the material that was gutted from it) to continue build the framework for "African aesthetic." (Deeceevoice) [91] CoYep 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I could not make heads or tails of this AFD debate. It was refactored, discussed on the article's talk page, the talk page of the AFD. Deeceevoice was arguing for merging then for keeping. If the content is going to be in African aesthetic we should at least keep the history (redirect/history merge). Kotepho 01:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Lots of confusion and acrimonious discussion on this one here, at the AfD, and on the talk page. A fairly large number of people who seem extraordinarily virulent about wanting to delete this. This is exactly what a no consensus keep-by-default AfD conclusion should be. Flag it with a tag if you think it needs one, let things quiet down, edit it as need be, and revisit in some months once everyone is calm again. Whatever good encyclopaedic content there is (and I have not read it in enough detail to have an opinion on that), let's give it a chance and let's see what it leads to. There is no need to rush. Martinp 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC), who voted No-consensus-keep, which I guess is one of the so-called "unconvincing" keep votes that Proto refers to.
• Endorse closure JoshuaZ 02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Proto et al. Tasteless Humor Comment (no extra charge): Does FrancisTyers' comment above mean that clowns having sex while on parade in Africa would be cool? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure noting of course that there's nothing to stop anyone performing a merge if they can obtain consensus to do so. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Can I just point out that there is no content other than a redirect in the history of this article. We're arguing about an empty URL. All the content has been moved, not cut-and-pasted, but moved, history and all, to Cool (African aesthetic). It happened on April 17, before this discussion began. So... we're actually discussing what to do with that article, or what are we actually discussing here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is a remnant of a very messy series of creations, recreations, deletions, moves, and redirects. The important thing is that the content is now at African aesthetic, having been duly restored following a recent Review. Cool (African philosophy) is currently a (recreated) redirect to African aesthetic; it was previously a redirect to Cool (African aesthetic), which is a page that was created when the content of Cool (African philosophy) was moved there. Cool (African aesthetic) is itself now a redirect, to Cool (aesthetic), which is a page with different content than the text here under dispute. I propose the following:
  • Delete Cool (African philosophy), for the following reasons: 1. It is a poor redirect, as no one searching for the content at African aesthetic is likely to type into the search box "Cool_(African philosophy)". 2. The history of the page relevant to the content at African aesthetic is not anymore at Cool (African philosophy) but at Cool (African aesthetic), where it had earlier been moved. The only history at Cool (African philosophy) is the revert war over which way the page should redirect. This is only important if the redirect itself is preserved; it is of no consequence if the page is deleted. There is no GFDL textual content of any kind anymore in the logs of Cool (African philosophy), and therefore absolutely nothing in Cool (African philosophy) that could be merged into African aesthetic (or, for that matter, that could possibly be merged into any other page). I must wonder whether the few individuals above who speak of merges from this page have actually read it. What is mergeworthy from here?
  • Redirect Cool (African aesthetic) to African aesthetic. The history preserved in the former is the early version of the text now at the latter (the latter does not record that because it seems to be a copy paste of one version of the text done during the deletion/recreation circus). Cool (aesthetic) is a different article. The sole use of Cool (African aesthetic) is as a placeholder for the history logs containing GFDL text now found at African aesthetic. Regards —Encephalon 20:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC) NB. I wrote this, and could have sworn seeing it posted, some 20 hours ago.
• Good idea, Encephalon. Of course, at that point, there's no reason not to do a history merge, and get the whole history over at African aesthetic. I'm willing to do the legwork if we can agree that's the solution. It certainly makes sense to me to decide which two articles are going to exist, get the histories there, and make everything else either a redirect or gone. I recommend delete Cool (African philosophy) (in all its no-content, no-history glory), merge history from Cool (African aesthetic) to African aesthetic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 May

1. Automobile manufaturers categories Sent back to CFD. 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Review
2. Naismith Family Contested PROD, restored and sent to AfD. 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
3. Philip Sandifer DRV aborted, listed at AfD. 2006-05-26 19:30:22 (UTC) Review
4. Church of Reality Minimal discussion, but kept deleted on the basis of lack of stated grounds in the nomination. 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
5. Azn people in United States Kept deleted unanimously. 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
6. AlmightyLOL Kept deleted unanimously. 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
7. List of video game collector and special editions By strict "tally", discussion was "tied", 3-3; however, weight of argument tipped in favor of relisting. 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
8. User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims Speedy deletion endorsed. 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
9. WWE Divas Do New York Keep closure endorsed. 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
10. I Like Monkeys, speedy reversed and send to AFD. 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
11. Science3456 sockpuppetry AfDs, debates relisted except GNAA. 17:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
12. Structures of the GLA, debate relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second nomination) 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
13. Prhizzm, undeleted and relisting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prhizzm (second nomination). 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
14. List of proper nouns containing a bang This case was complicated by an out-of-process deletion during DRV. In consideration of the consensus afterwards expressed that this out-of-process deletion was in error, article will be relisted afresh at AfD. 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
15. Brooks Kubik Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 17:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
16. ProgressSoft Undeleted and relisted at AfD for further consideration. 16:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
17. Aww Nigga Kept deleted and protected. 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
18. that ass Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
19. Matrixism Status quo (previous deletions and current redirect) endorsed. 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
20. Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system Discussion subpage undeleted. 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
21. Male Unbifurcated Garment Deletion closure endorsed. 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Review
22. Major power Redirect closure endorsed unanimously. 18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
23. User:Travb/Tactics of some admins regarding copyright Deletion endorsed. 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
24. James R. Gillespie Deletion endorsed. 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
25. Longest streets in London Deletion endorsed. 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
26. JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu Deletion endorsed. 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
27. Template:Mills corp Undeleted and relisted on AfD. 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
28. Israel News Agency Undeleted, relisting on AFD has been suggested. 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
29. Eminem's enemies Deletion endorsed unanimously. 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
30. Cock block Narrow majority, 12-11, favor undeletion and relisting at AfD. 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
31. Ryan Rider Userfied. 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Review
32. The Adventures of Dr. McNinja Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 12:18:11 (UTC) Review
33. myg0t Kept deleted. 2006-05-23 08:06:33 (UTC) Review
34. Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine relisted to AFD 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
35. Category:Sylviidae Accidental deletion, content restored. 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Review
36. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Closure as merge endorsed unanimously. 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
37. DJ Cheapshot, SpyTech Records and 4-Zone (rapper) Speedy deletions endorsed. 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
38. The Juggernaut Bitch Kept Deleted. 02:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
39. Thirty Ought Six Deletion endorsed. (Current redirect is unrelated.) 02:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
40. RAD Data Communications Kept deleted. - 12:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
41. Link leak Kpet deleted. - 12:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
42. Conservative Underground Kept deleted. - 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
43. Template:Tracker Kept deleted. - 11:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
44. Gordon Cheng - Restored and relisted, now at AfD. - 11:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
45. Category:Wold Newton family members - Close of keep endorsed. - 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Review
46. Ryze - Undeleted and relisted on AFD per consensus. 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
47. Jack Berman - Restored history per consensus. 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
48. Ghey - kept deleted but protection removed. Redirect target undecided. 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Review
49. CEWC-Cymru - Restored as contested PROD. 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
50. Nephew (band) - Mistaken nomination. Kept deleted. No prejudice against creation of a different article at the same title. 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
51. Andrew Kepple - Disputed prod, restored and listed to AFD. 03:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Review
52. Sports betting forum Resotored and stubbed by deleting admin. 07:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
53. YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam Closure of "keep" endorsed. 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
54. Upfront Rewards Kept deleted and protected. 07:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
55. David Anber Kept deleted. 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Review
56. User_talk:Gomi-no-sensei/archive restored by deleting admin. 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Review
57. Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 Kept deleted and protected. 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
58. Willy on Wheels Kept deleted and protected. 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
59. Aaron Donahue Kept deleted and protected. 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
60. OITC fraud Closure endorsed without prejudice to NPOV article being written. 01:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
61. StarCraft_II Kept deleted and protected against recreation. 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
62. Michael Crook Kept deleted. 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
63. Dualabs Endorse "non-deletion" outcome but strong objections raised to closer's methods. 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Review
64. VOIPBuster Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Review
65. List of people with absolute pitch kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
66. Template:Infobox Conditionals never actually deleted but no support for undoing the redirect. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
67. MusE returned to normal editing. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
68. Template:Ifdef kept deleted. 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Review
69. Reverend and The Makers. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverend and The Makers. 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
70. Userbox, Userboxes. Both cross-space redirects restored by a slight 10-8 majority and relisted on WP:RFD. 06:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
71. Global Resource Bank Initiative. Relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Resource Bank Initiative. 06:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
72. Cool (African philosophy). Closure endorsed but page already redirects to African aesthetic anyway. 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
73. Cajun Nights MUSH Kept deleted unanimously. 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
74. Rosario Isasi Closure as keep endorsed unanimously, without prejudice to a future AfD nom. 00:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Review
75. El kondor pada Speedily restored by deleting admin, listed at AfD. 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Review
76. Futuristic Sex Robotz DRV nomination withdrawn. 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
77. Insert Text Redirect restored by unanimous consensus. 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
78. Scott Thayer Deletion closure endorsed. 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
79. Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease Recreation permitted. 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
80. Category:User kon Restored, tho I (Syrthiss) am about to relist it with a cogent explanation at CFD. 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
81. List of "All your base are belong to us" external links Deletion endorsed unanimously. 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
82. SilentHeroes Different from CSD A4 material, restored and relisted at AFD. 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Review
83. Bands (neck) Restored after copyright problem satisfactorily resolved. 14:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Review
84. The Amazing Racist Deletion closure endorsed. 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
85. User:Avillia/CVU_Politics Restoration permitted after removal of copyrighted material. 13:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
86. Gurunath Keep closure at AfD endorsed unanimously. 13:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
87. Rationales to impeach George W. Bush Relisted for 3rd AfD, after deprecation of prematurely-closed 2nd AfD. 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review
88. The Game (game), most recent AfD endorsed, page restored. 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Review

Recent userbox discussions

• Template:User Republican, Template:User Democrat (result kd, WP:SNOW, strong endorsement and blatantly polemical userboxes.
• Template:User Chinese reunification (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW it has emerged in debate that PRC/ROC question is *de facto* polemical and divisive.)
• Template:User UKIP, Template:User UK Conservative, etc (result Close, WP:SNOW,massive endorsement for deletion)
• Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en Speedy undeleted and listed at TfD after initial defective DRV. 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User Church of Christ (keep deleted)
• Template:User atheist (result undelete)
• Template:User scientology (result kd)
• Template:User liberal (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW, massive endorsement)
• Template:User Hell, Template:User Ideal Dictator, and Template:User Elitist Consensus was to keep User Hell (which has already survived TfD), and undelete and TfD the others. 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User liberty (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User chav & Template:User notchav (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• User:CharonX/Userboxes/User christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User hate (result kept deleted. WP:SNOW. Only nominator for review wanted it undeleted).
• Template:User Wikicheese-ologist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User ProIsrael: (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User varied sex: (result kept deleted, closed as frivolous challenge)
• Template:User Triceratops Accident (result kept deleted)
• Template:User antiuserboxdeletion (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Darwinist(result kept deleted)
• User:UBX/Communist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User No Marxism (result kept deleted)
• Template:User infidel undeleted.
• Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master ... it's complicated discussion
• Template:User against Saud (result almost unanimous keep deleted)
• Template:User_Unamerican and others (result nomination delisted early; template kept deleted)
• Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover (result kept deleted).
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts (result kept deleted)
• Template:User admins ignoring policy (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Unamerican and others (result kept deleted)
• Template:User vomit (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism (result: both kept deleted)
• Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker (Archive#Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker: undeleted and relisted on TfD)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Same Sex Marriage (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User independent Iraq (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User antiparty (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User review (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Copyright Nazi (result: kept deleted)
• User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF (result: undeleted)
• Template: User evol-X (result: kept deleted)
• Template: User feminist (result: undeleted)
• Template:User userbox insurgent (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User userbox revolution (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
• Template:User opposes ubx screwing (result: kept deleted as protected page)
• Template:User USA Police State (result)
• Template:User No Meat (result: recreated as redirect)
• George W. Bush templates
• Pseudo-templates Userbox:Anti ACLU, Userbox:Anti UN (result)

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 [92] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[93] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [94] 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. [95] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [96] 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 [97]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [98] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [99] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [100] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [101] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [102] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [103] 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 [104] 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. [105] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [106] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[107] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[108] 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. [109] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [110] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [111] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [112] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [113] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [114] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [115] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [116] 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. [117] 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. [118] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [119] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [120] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [121], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [122] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [123] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [124] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [125] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [126] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [127] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [128] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [129] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [130] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [131] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [132] 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 [133]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. [134] 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