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 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 16}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

7 May 2006

Nephew (band)

I'm very much a rookie in the enwiki deletion process, so bare with me and help me, please. :)

I've discovered, that the well-known danish band, Nephew (band), has been deleted due to some non-danish theories about the band. English wikipedia has an article about it's lead singer, Simon Kvamm, and both the danish and the german wikipedia has an article about the band. They do sing primarily in danish as to why they are not huge outside of Denmark, but they are very well known, and their record from 2004, USADSB, has had huge record sales. At the Danish Music Awards in 2005, the band won best album, best band, best rock album, best music video and best hit. The band website also has a complete english version now (which is one of the complaints in the deletion discussion).

I vote for undeletion, if the deleted article had any interesting content.

--Morten Barklund ^{[ talk / contribs ]} 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete - notability now established per WP:MUSIC; details above should be incorporated into article. Aquilina 15:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Misunderstanding The article which was deleted was NOT a Danish band, but a British band (the article was a substub and the UK Nephew didn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC). The Danish Nephew does meet WP:MUSIC by quite a large margin (awards, a platinum album, etc). Keep the old article deleted, and just make a new one about the Danish band. Nobody would object. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The new article would go under the same name, Nephew (band), and this would be all right with respect to this article name having an older version with a deletion process for a totally different article? As I could not see the contents of the old article, I just assumed it was about the fairly well-known danish band. Just to make sure, there is no current article about this danish band under some other name, correct? It does not appear so, but just to make sure. Otherwise, this deletion review is irrelevant. --Morten Barklund ^{[ talk / contribs ]} 16:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no article on the band Nephew in the English wikipedia. Starting a new article at the same name would be fine, though my advice would be to throw a sentence or two on the new article's talk page explaining the situation with the old AfD, so some admin doesn't mistakenly delete it as a re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghey

It now turns out to get increasing number of search engine results 400,000;407,000;416,000 (YAHOO!). It is/has become a proofable internet phenomena at least. I would like to get it undeleted, because the deleted page appers at top of search results, and it looks like wikipedia performs censorship. My argumentation is that wikipedia maintains entries with ~500 hits, like Cocacolonization, or 94 hits, like Nipponisation. The number of search engine hits, which link to verifyable different sites, show an remarkable interest of the public in the subject of Ghey.

see Skeletor (called ghey on the net).

416,000 hits for "Ghey", and its means something different. See Amy, Ami - it is also a name. I believe i am allowed to argue here, opposed to Afd.

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 742,000 for ghey. Wikipedia probably needs to redirect/protect it. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment It seems like the user is trying to make a WP:POINT, firstly by nominating Cocacolonization for AfD and secondly for using it and this section as evidence for the point. Ansell 10:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to gay, as a misspelling. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there "notable" uses other than Gay#Pejorative usage? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 13:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Don't be ghey. Go BUY it for like $15 US dollars. Order it from chips and bits, I'm sure it's cheap. - sense of meaning of lame. nothing sexual/orientation related. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 13:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Beginning in the 1990s and especially in the 2000s the usage became common among young people, who may or may not link the term to homosexuality." --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's the AfD? Can this article ever be anything more than a dicdef? Any way to see what the article looked like before it was deleted? Powers 13:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a VfD linked to on the protected page, but from July 2004 (which the initiator of this edited a week ago). The deletion log did record a deletion of this on March 27, and the content of the article was listed in the reason. It was, indeed, a simple dicdef. WarpstarRider 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Leave protected Lots of hits, but no definitive meaning of the slang word. Possible redirect to Gay (disambiguation) due to different meanings, as redirecting to one in particular would be validation on one variant without a reference. MartinRe 13:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm inclined to leave this entry deleted for the point that Powers makes: even if it were notable on its own, it should be transwikied to wikidictionary. Bucketsofg✐ 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Either keep deleted or redirect to the disambig page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Create a page with a link to Wiktionary:ghey and Gay (disambiguation) or redirect to Gay (disambiguation) and link to the Wiktionary page from there. I'm not certain which would be best, - can a disambig page have just one internal and one interwiki link? Thryduulf 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

6 May 2006

Automobile/Motor Manufacturer CFD

At the end of a CFD to move Automobile/Motor Manufacturers to the "Company of Foo" format, there seemed to be a good body of opinion in favour but with the caveat of Motor Manufacturers rather than Automobile Manufacturers where this is local usage, which was an alteration from the original nomination. User:Cyde then put User:Cydebot to work altering all of the categories as per the nomination without reference to the CFD disscussion. Noticing this in progress I posted to Cyde's talk page then having had no response to Bots. Some 10 hours later User:Tim! closed the CFD noting that Cyde had already done the rename, I then posted to Tim! as per the advice given on the Bot noticeboard, who replied on my talk page. Cyde later replied on his talk page with a comment that seems to justify over ruling any CFD at the will of the closing Admin.

I suggest that the categories be renamed, or at least full consideration is given renaming them, inline with the CFD discussion. Ian3055 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008

I nominate that this page be unprotected. There is no good reason to not re-create this page aside from the fact that it was created one time as a bogus article and used for WP:POINT. Whilst WP:POINT does forbid the creation of articles just to prove a point, the guidline is not intended to be used by admins to unfairly penalize one side of the political spectrum over another. If an editor has good sources to compose this article, he or she should be allowed to do so and then be afforded the same right to go through a contested AfD process, at least up until we have consensus on how to deal with these articles. BlueGoose 20:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and protection For heavens' sake, this doesn't penalize one side of the political spectrum: Rationales for voting for Hillary in 2008 would be just as bad, and just as quickly deleted. Having Rationales for doing X and Rationales for not doing X is not NPOV, and is needless forking. The solution is to merge arguments for and against X into the article X. I've never checked Sen. Clinton's article, but I bet it has a criticism section. There you are. Xoloz 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete iff Bush article is kept on AfD. Otherwise keep deleted.  Grue  20:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Which Bush article? By the way, the entire content of this article was, Some advocates of not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008, point out that she's a mother fucking dyke on a motherfucking plane with some motherfucking snakes. So, er, endorse the motherfucking deletion. - ulayiti (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• endorse deletion as per Ulayiti. Thryduulf 21:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Block the creator for personal attacks and trolling. (And yes, that is a keep deleted.) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• WTF? Endorse deletion whatever happens to the Bush AfD, and slap the creator with a trout. --Doc ^ask? 22:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Existence of one bad article does not imply existence of others is good. Also Wikipedia is not a soap box. This is an easy one. Stephen B Streater 22:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

*Restore and ban Doc and Titoxd for personal attacks. Brownman40 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of BlueGoose (talk · contribs). -- Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• • There is nothing personal in attacking the creator of a WP:POINT violating article with a trout. Indeed, since I've not looked to see who created it, it can hardly be personal. All such people should be [very impersonally] so slapped. Gah! --Doc ^ask? 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse of course. Kudos to Brownman40 for what is either the best example of irony in this whole sorry mess or a superb example of missing the point by a margin unmeasurable without recourse to astronomical measurement units. Just zis Guy you know? 23:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but remove protection - For consistency's sake, I have to say "delete". But, also for consistency's sake, if "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush" survives its AfD (yet again), we must also allow this article to be re-created as long as it is equally sourced, NPOV, etc.--WilliamThweatt 23:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• A couple of points
  • I endorse the deletion, but I'm requesting that that the protection is removed. I'm not condoning the article creator, but is permanent protection really necessary?
  • Let's bring some civility back to this discussion, please. BlueGoose 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse -- Cruft...need I say more.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 02:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and deleted any article entitled "Rationales for not voting for X". Gamaliel 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion and endorse the blocking of the troll who created (and then re-created) the article. The protection does seem unnecessary though I must also admit that I can not see any possibility of Wikipedia ever having an allowable article under this title. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and beat someone with a trout. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As Xoloz notes above, this kind of article is POV and turns wikipedia into a soapbox. Bucketsofg✐ 17:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• How could this possibly not end up a POV fest? Delete any sort of article along these lines. Endorse deletion and Keep Deleted ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted, I guess it is only typical that Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush has survived two AfD's and is now on its third run, such is the state of NPOV on WP. Perhaps the advocates against this one can put the same strong case against the other?--Kalsermar 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself, I voted to merge content on that the controversial Bush fork to Movement to Impeach George W. Bush. This is entirely consistent with my suggestion above that (had the Clinton fork in question contained anything worthwhile) the place for that content, critical of Sen. Clinton, is her article. I expect the Bush fork will be merged, and no double standard will exist. Xoloz 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This whole thing was a WP:BEANS. --Cyde Weys 19:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sports betting forum

I would like to request that this article be restored.

On 15 January 2006, administrator FCYTravis, nominated the article to be deleted.

The result of the debate as announced by administrator Johnleemk on 20 January 2006 was to keep the article without any qualifications.

FCYTravis ignored the result and speedily deleted the article on 21 January 2006 [1].

Critic 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and keep BlueGoose 20:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - none of 'misnamed, impossibly written, unsourced, not verifiable, POV' are criteria for speedy deletion. - ulayiti (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, clear consensus, and there didn't appear to be any issues regarding policy or guideline to ignore the result. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist: An orphaned article where people voted to 'keep and cleanup', but three and a half months later no-one has? *drops monocle* But it should have been relisted at AfD, and then it should have been deleted unless someone found verification, in defiance of a 69%-for-deletion-'no-consensus' if necessary. I will vote delete when/if it is relisted, but this isn't a case of WP:SNOW. (Really, if I was Jimbo, I would decree that all 'Keep and cleanup' votes for orphaned articles would be forever null and void. If you work to improve a hopeless article that no-one will ever read, you are mad.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Of course I can't write on behalf of the other six editors who voted to keep the article, but I simply assumed that the article had been deleted correctly according to Wikipedia policies. I did not know the outcome of the AfD until yesterday, because once the article was deleted, there was no obvious link to the AfD (this may seem obvious to administrators, but it is not to ordinary editors - figuring out how to formally request a reversal of the deletion also took a lot of time). I only discovered yesterday that FCYTravis had carried out his threat to abuse his administration powers as he said he would in the AfD by deleting the article notwithstanding its outcome. My recollection was that the article was not orphaned at the time, and it was the stated opinion of most of the editors who voted for its retention that the article had potential, notwithstanding the faults that it had. Critic 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Why waste any more time? As Travis said, "misnamed, impossibly written, unsourced, not verifiable, POV and anything else you want to throw at it." Hard to find a single policy it doesn't violate, in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Speedy was invalid, and Afd was keep, Nominating an article for afd and then ignoring the result is very poor form for an admin. MartinRe 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• weak undelete and relist Sam's logic is good, but I'm not in strong agreement with him due to the general lack of any expansion/clean up between the previous AfD and its out of process deletion. JoshuaZ 05:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and keep, while "not verifiable" can be a speedy deletion criteria in certain circumstances (CSD G1 "patent nonsense", A7 "non-notability") they do not apply to this article. None of the other reasons given are valid under any circumstances. Thryduulf 22:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC) PS: user:Malthusian's comment in the AfD is definately worth copying to a list of great deletion debate quotes - I'm sure I've seen one but I've got no idea where!
  • Comment, I've readdded this as this edit by Doc Glasgow (which looks like an edit conflict with himself?) somehow removed it - almost certainly unintentionally. Thryduulf 08:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and probably relist. The article should probably be deleted, but speedying is inappropriate here. Furthermore, that the speedying was done by AfD nominating user, in disregard for the consensus reached, immediately after the AfD closed, is in exceptionally poor form, and I would like to see an explanation as to why FCYTravis thought this was appropriate. I also do not see that the deletion justifications are in CSD. I would expect an administrator to know what is and is not in CSD, and to justify speedying accordingly. --Philosophus ^T 08:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll add a {{DRVNote}} to the talkpage of the admin in question, as they may be unaware this debate is ongoing. MartinRe 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, a lot of admins ignore the CSD (or at least interpret them much too liberally) when speedying articles they don't like. - ulayiti (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unless someone here commits right now to a complete rewrite - because the article is not useful and should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's an unsourced POV original-research essay - it's like a laundry list of everything Wikipedia is not and hence no amount of "voting" can change the fact that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Who says that there's "sports betting forum etiquette?" Which published source says that "When making a prediction on a sports betting forum, members are expected to provide a rationale for their "play" (as shown above). Simply stating the teams that you think will win does not help other members of the sports betting community?" This is a pile of junk that sat around for months with nobody caring to so much as touch it. I nominated it for AFD, and everyone screamed "it needs cleanup" - yet not a single person said they were willing to do it. Now everyone wants to scream OMG OUT OF PROCESS. Hey, guess what? Nobody even noticed its disappearance. That means to me that nobody who voted 'keep' in the AFD was interested in fixing the article. I would support a complete sourced rewrite of the article. If someone here publicly commits to cleaning it up and sourcing it within the next week, I'll support its immediate undeletion (and move to a proper title). But I will not support the undeletion of another complete crap article that will simply sit around for another six months with nobody so much as bothering to lift a finger to fix it. So put up or shut up. FCYTravis 13:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If an afd returns 'keep, with cleanup', and the cleanup doesn't happen after a reasonable time, then the best thing to do would be afd it again, with that extra infomation, not speedy it. Regards, MartinRe 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The article had sat around untouched for months already. There is no evidence to suggest that another two months with a WP:CLEANUP tag would have made any difference. None of those voting keep volunteered to clean it up. The offer stands - if someone commits to cleaning up, sourcing and encyclopedizing the article, I will immediately undelete it and close this debate. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? FCYTravis 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Maybe I missed something, but this was speedied the day after the AfD, right? I know there are a class of editors (anons) thereby rendered unable to improve the topic's coverage. Many registered editors find the "red link" blank page daunting as well. Speedy deleting it drastically reduced the chance anyone would provide a tidy copy, so citing all the time that has passed without new work is not especially compelling. Additionally, reversing the closure of another admin one day later, particularly when one was the nominator in the first place, is very bad form. This pedia is not anyone's plaything, and no single person should so strongly assert his judgment against a contrary consensus, for doing so undermines the comity and professionalism of the community (even if the single person is right, mind you.) Further: When this is relisted, if it is kept, I will ensure that it is a sound article within a month after closure. (I'm busy, so I need a little time.) Xoloz 17:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted, moved and stubbed the article per your offer to clean it up and rewrite it. FCYTravis 17:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

VOIPBuster

The page on VOIPBuster should not have been deleted. It is about a useful VOIP resource and many similar instant messengers are already featured on Wikipedia.

After the first deletions calling it an advertisement, I reworked the content and made it more facts-oriented. Did the admin see the updated version before deleting it again? I was not even notified of this deletion. I used to believe that such decisions were made after informing the contributor!

Please, Please, Please RESTORE this page for the benefit of another wikipedians. It is not an advertisement as much as Rediff BOL, another instant messenger entry on Wikipedia is not an advertisement.

--Vishaltayal 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Assertion for Notability: as per WP:N

• Featured in The Guardian, Tech Review Section
• Features in Telecom Paper link here
• Tagged in Download.com as Popular with 6,720 downloads as on 7th May 2006.link here

--Vishaltayal 11:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have notified Makemi at his talk page so that he can undelete and list this article on AfD as per the consensus.--vishaltayal 18:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD. Was deleted out of process with the non-existent CSD 'advertising', and from then on as previously deleted content (even though it was deleted out of process), twice with summaries calling it 'sickening' (WP:BITE, anyone?). Not very admirable behaviour for admins. - ulayiti (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD. While this does read like advertising to me, this is not a speedy deletion criteria. The admin who called this "sickening" should be ashamed. Thryduulf 22:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, WP:SNOW. The "facts-oriented" version is still spam. Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If VOIPBuster is considered to be an advert, we also need to delete from Wikipedia, many other instant messengers which hardly anyone else knows about i.e they can also be considered as advertisements of their respective companies. Deleting some and keeping others is NOT FAIR. Some examples are Camfrog, Rediff BOL and Nate. I wonder how are these kept!--Vishaltayal 07:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW is not policy, especially when this is about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on Afd Neither Spam, nor WP:SNOW are valid reasons for speedy deletions, and even articles that start out at adverts may often be salvagable. (google returns about 750,000 results, so it's conceivable that this is notable enough to pass Afd) Regards, MartinRe 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick search found one such link: a review from The Guardian discussing Skype, Vonage and Voipbuster[2]. Regards, MartinRe 11:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD per above. WP:SNOW should not be used to defend an admin's revert warring over an invalid-on-its-face Speedy. Vslashg (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD. This is not a valid speedy, per the above. Cynical 10:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD The sources given convince me that WP:SNOW does not apply. No other remotely valid speedy rationale has been given. Xoloz 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have restored the article. In light of the sources given, I will not myself put it up for AfD. However, I was under the impression that posts of straight advertising by someone who clearly works for the company were often speedied, but perhaps I acted too rashly in this case. I maintain, however, that it was pretty sickening advertising, and if you're the advertising guy for a company, you should be able to take it. I think we as a community need to talk seriously about how Wikipedia is used for advertising and how we should deal with it. I hate spam, and I hate dealing with it, and I don't think it should be content in an encyclopedia, but others are free to disagree. Mak (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I DO NOT work for VOIPBuster. It is simply a product I use as much as I use Skype, MSN Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger, all of which have their respective articles on Wikipedia. My article on this product was based on its utility and popularity and not for any other purpose.--vishaltayal 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

5 May 2006

YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam

This AfD was inappropriately closed early by User:Starblind. Deletion policy states that "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." The closing is even more inappropriate because Starblind voted in the discussion, and because it wasn't even allowed to run for 24 hours. Please relist this and let it run its course on AfD. --Hetar 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse close (obviously, as I was the closer). The nominator has listed no fewer than six Gundam articles for AfD in the past few weeks, all which ended in keep and all "lopsided" enough that there was no chance whatsoever of deletion of any of them. We have dozens (perhaps hundreds) of Gundam articles... what good does it do for the encyclopedia to create a completely hopeless AfD for each one? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist closer 'voted', not even 24 hours, not bad faith, there is a significant amount of people that did not vote to keep in all of the AFDs and most of the people voting keep happened to edit the articles or other SEED articles. Kotepho 05:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I know a pile-on when I see one. No way this debate could have produced consensus to delete. David | Talk 13:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Based on the account provided by Starblind, he had compelling reason to think this was a bad-faith AfD/violation of WP:POINT. As such, early closure was entirely within his discretion. Xoloz 13:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure with slight reservations Given the precedent of recent closely related afd's, and similar voting trend in this one, a speedy keep seems reasonable (although it wouldn't have hurt to let it continue), even if not explicitly covered by WP:SK. However it would have looked better to let an admin who hadn't voted close it, even if the result would have been the same. Regards, MartinRe 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure with slight reservations What MartinRe said. JoshuaZ 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure although an uninvolved admin would have been more appropriate. No point in repeated refights of the same battle, with predictable outcome. --Rob 22:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Upfront Rewards

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

Would an admin please make it available?

Hello? Would someone email it to me?

Email it to whom? Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously Elvey, three lines up. · rodii · 11:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Still looking for help in this regard. I'd also like the history; to research IPs and such of editors. Rossami, be so civil as not to delete this, thanks. Stifle, are you going to send it? --Elvey 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upfront Rewards refers. 4:1 delete, plus nom, with Elvey (talk · contribs) above the sole Keep vote. I'm not sure if Elvey wants the version as deleted or his original hatchet job, but it's hard to think why anyone would want either. Just zis Guy you know? 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

David Anber

I'm new at this so please excuse me if I am doing this wrong. I would like to nominate an article for deletion review. It was deleted and I believe that the closing admin misinterpreted the debate.

I suggest that the proper outcome of the debate was No Consensus and by implication should be kept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Anber

In his reasons, the closing admin stated: "There are intelligent arguments on both sides, and ultimately it came down to the numbers."

There are two things wrong with this analysis: 1. A significant minority gave a number of reasons why the article should be kept. The closing admin's reasons do not indicate that the reasons of the article's proponents were defeated, he said it came down to numbers, which I believe is misreading the lack of consensus here.

2. As for the numbers, there was a roughly equal number of justified and elaborated arguments on both sides. Many users posted without giving reasons why. I think this contributes to the argument that there really isn't consensus. The posters in favour of the article could have enlisted other people to parrot their arguments "as per so and so" but they did not. The numbers should be read in light of the numbers of arguments rather than the number of votes.

I would like to see this article restored simply because of lack of consensus:

"Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin. If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Find lack of consensus from original AFD debate and as a result: undelete CLEAR POLI SCI JUNKIE 07:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion A number of the keep arguments came from anon and new users, which the admin is entitled take into account. Based on the numbers and arguments, it boils down to whether to not the subject meets WP:BIO. Based on the afd, it appears that generally the opinion was "not yet" (so no objection to creation in the future if more notable achievements are brought to light) MartinRe 11:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, close was valid. To address Amber's comment, "I'd be a bit disappointed if fewer and fewer comparable "footnote-type-tid-bits" were weeded out of Wikipedia. I like being able to look up a topic and find little tiny facts that I can't find elsewhere", no articles link to this one, which for me is an almost certain indication that this isn't encyclopaedia material. Pretty much the only people looking up David Amber are going to be people personally connected with him, and an encyclopaedia does not cater for this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and I forgot the obvious point: A little tiny fact that can't be found elsewhere violates WP:V. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid and properly-closed AfD. Discounting anon and new-user votes isn't just a possibility, it's a universal practice. Also, I agree with Samuel's comments above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Andrew Lenahan. DarthVader 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per MartinRe and Starblind. Whatever their good intentions, we cannot trust anonymous and very new users to understand WP policy, and it is within administrative discretion to discount them. Xoloz 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Undeletion What many people are failing to consider is that many people in politics, myself included, prefer to protect our identities especially when commenting on people that we come across in the political field. This happens more often in politics than other fields, due to the nature of the beast. The arguments in favor of keeping the article were persuasive enough to result in lack of consensus.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.122.119.146 (talk • contribs) . -- Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• How do you know people are failing to consider it? What you describe is reasonable, but one of the costs of it is that you lose credibility in deletion debates. It's a choice you make. Having an account here doesn't necessarily mean you have less anonymity anyway--if you don't want people to know who you are, don't disclose personal information. The upside is that as you develop a stable identity here, the credibility problem goes away. · rodii · 16:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• So why not create an account which protects your identity but gives you a handle that people can come to know you by? You don't have to use a real name, you can use just about anything non-offensive as a user name, but it will be the same as being "you" to people who interact with you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• If you have an account with a pseudonym, you're more anonymous than when you contribute with an IP address that can be traced. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

4 May 2006

OITC fraud

This was a very difficult close. The article was extremely biased, to the extent that it appeared to be a hatchet job. The article named several individuals and associated them with criminal activities, and most of the references given seem to establish simply that there is no such organisation as OITC.

In the circumstances, I believe that no good is served by the continued existence of the piece, and a clean rewrite is best. My close was as follows:

Delete as misinformation. I will readily send any verifiable, non-defamatory content from this article to anyone who wishes to write a proper article on this subject. In the meantime, I think the best thing we can do with this strongly biased and confusing concoction is to delete it lest some innocent party should be wrongly associated with the random wrongdoings alleged.

24.215.205.169 (talk · contribs) has queried it and I think it should be reviewed. I continue to maintain my offer to send the non-defamatory sections of this article to those who want to make a good faith attempt to rewrite this article to Wikipedia standards. --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OITC fraud and prior, no consensus afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of International Treasury Control

• Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article
  Today an administrator by the name Tony Sidaway deleted the article in reference, saying that "the result of the debate was delete as misinformation". As any person who checks the deletion debate can ascertain, this is simply not true. The majority of Wikipedia users that intervened in the debate (7, to my count), voted to keep and/or move or clean. Only two, including one of the people who initially vandalized the article, voted for deletion.
  The article was not a "hatchet job". It was a compilation of newspaper articles (including texts from the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph), and governmental press releases. Weeks of serious research went into retrieving and sourcing such information. The purpose was to provide information about a shadowy entity that seems to thrive and take advantage of secrecy. For fairness, even the point of view of the OITC was given.
  If there is no respect whatsoever for the results of a deletion debate, as in this case, what is the sense of having one? I respectfully request the reinstatement of the article. An explanation by Tony Sidaway would also be appropriate. --24.215.205.169
• Keep deleted (for now) (Tony never deletes articles lightly) this is bias-infested with large POV and WP:V problems. Notmally I'd say keep and clean-up but this is beyond that. However, if someone wants to rebuild the article under a better name with proper balance and sources, I'd be willing to let them try. --Doc ^ask? 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• My reading of the two AfDs is that it has been verified that OITC is a scam about which the United Nations have made official statements. My opinion is that there ought to be an article about the scam, so undelete verifable, non-defamatory content and move it to Office of International Treasury Control. OITC should be a redirect there (as per Sam Blanning in the 2nd afd). The article will need to have an eye kept on it to ensure it is verifiable and NPOV. Thryduulf 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. And I don't do this lightly, because an article about a fraud scheme is difficult to create and must be backed up by good sources. On the other hand, we cannot take the article away because someone doesn't like the thing to be covered in Wikipedia. Things with considerable media attention should be covered, even if those people involved don't like it being covered. We don't delete the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal for instance. Creation of such articles must of course be done very conscientiously, seriously and cautiously. (On a related matter, shocking new info on frauds should not be uncovered on Wikipedia, such is original research and unverifiable, but letting Wikipedia be a tertiary source for whatever has been presented in newspapers is a different matter. In this case, I think the very important WP:V condition is met because the article has been very concsientiously sourced. There are inline external links provided to back up nearly all, if not all the claims in the article (slight uncertainty here because I cannot read the Spanish). Also, the issue of WP:NPOV is extremely difficult to resolve when the article is in a deleted state. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and allow for the creation of Office of International Treasury Control. For the record, I voted "move and keep" in the original AfD. So long as Tony is willing to see this through and email non-defamatory sections of the article to whomever wants to try to create something NPOV, I don't really see the point in overturning this. JDoorjam Talk 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Being new here, I was under the impression that the deletion debate was a democratic process, and that the result was based on how many people voted for deleting/keeping and article. As per Tony Sidaway's actions of today and as per your comment, I believe now I was mistaken. It seems that any article can be deleted, no matter what is the result of the debate. Is sufficient that some Adminsitrator find it deletable. Are then deletion debates a pointeless waste of time? --24.215.205.169
    • Comment: Deletion discussions are not pointless but they very definitely are not "democratic" in the sense that most people think of when they use that word. We are emphatically not "voting" in deletion discussions. Please read Wikipedia:Voting is evil and the Guide to deletion for more. Rossami (talk)
• Endorse deletion but allow creation of a verifiable article under the title Office of International Treasury Control. Thatcher131 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The very title is prejudicial; the allegations in the article are (depending on your reading of them) either libellous or not notable. The sourcing is obviously unsatisfactory for allegations of this nature. The article is at best useless and at worst dangerous for Wikipedia: nothing can be salvaged which would help the creation of a proper article on the subject, even if such an article were deemed desirable. Physchim62 (talk)
  • Comment, The article was originally entitled Office of International Treasury Control. It was a Wikipedia Administrator who changed the title. The sources include the Financial Times. View your comment, one can draw the conclusion that such a newspaper is too low to be a source. Thus, do please enlighten us, what sourcing would be satisfactory to Wikipedia? --24.215.205.169

14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, per concerns over unsourced claims regarding living people. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, All the claims in the article are sourced. When living people are mentioned, it is in the context of newspaper articles and governmental press releases. If you or any other Wikipedia user would take the time of reading the article and considering it along with the sourcing, your will see how careful in finding verifiable sources we have been.--24.215.205.169
    • While the newspaper articles themselves are okay as far as they go, the problem with the deleted article arose because individuals were named and associated with serious lawbreaking. We'd need much stronger sources than those provided to support such serious allegations. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, Thus, as per your reasoning, no living individual should be named in connection with possible illegal activities, no matter how many governmental sources or newspaper articles mention them in such context? I disagree with such opinion. There are many Wikipedia articles that mention people in relation to illegal activities on the basis of published information. One, for example is the Dominion of Melchizedek, with which, by the way, some of the OITC people have been linked. --24.215.205.169
• Comment, Just to add to the discussion, we would like to point out the reason behind the research and publication of the article about OITC in Wikipedia. We believe the lack of information on the Internet about the OITC makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people around the world to make an informed decision about their "offers". Very few people have the time, ressources or patience to do as full a search on newspapers and governmental websites as we have, to have a full idea of their background. On the other hand, OITC people are active in many fora, always anonymously, disseminating their "information" and attacking whoever dares contradict them, taking advantage of the lack of data on their activities. We believed Wikipedia was an open and unbiased space in which properly sourced data could be made accesible. We still hope our expectation would be proven right. --24.215.205.169
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compedium of fact, not an investigative news service. That said, you should take Tony up on his offer to provide you with a copy of the article. Work on it in your user space, and when you think it is ready, post an announcement and ask for comments before you move it to main space (not sure where such an announcement should go, maybe WP:ANI or one of the Villiage Pumps). Thatcher131 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Thanks for your kind offer, but we do have a full copy of the article and therefore the assistance of Tony Sidaway's is unnecesary. About your comment, the article in question is a compendium of fact, sourced with 36 links that anyone could verify. How many more links are you required to include to make it acceptable? It is precisely because of this that we are requesting its reinstatement. --24.215.205.169
    • Well, first of all the article should have a neutral title, such as suggested above. I know it was moved; there's no point in rehashing that again. Second, your sources should be things that in principle any wikipedian could verify. Public records and newspaper articles and such. Private e-mails, letters, and the results of your own investigation should be excluded except references to sources as I described. Fourth, don't make specific accusations of fraud or criminal activity until there has been an arrest or conviction. You can say, The OITC has promised this...however, other sources can not verify etc. Fifth, I am somewhat disturbed by your attitude that you need to use wikipedia to publicize this case. Wikipedia is not meant to be used by anybody for publicity. If the event or group is not very well known that is a sign it does not belong in an encyclopedia. There are millions of con artists in the world and maybe these people aren't that big a deal to the world at large (although they may be very important to the people affected by the alleged fraud). If you believe it meets these goals you should put it on a user sub-page and ask for comment. Thatcher131 16:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, First, indulging in rehearsing for the benefit of whomever has not read precedent posts, it was a Wikipedia Administrator who changed the title. Second, no e-mails, fora postings or chat transcriptions were used as sources of the article. All the links were to newspapers, such as The Financial Times, and governmental sites, such as the Fiji Police. I belive you have not reviewd the article properly if you have not realized this. Third, we have stated what was the intention behind the article. This in no way disacredits the contents, very well sourced as they are. Fourth, again, we request the results of the original deletion debate are respected and the article is reinstated. --24.215.205.169
• Keep deleted and create Office of International Treasury Control. Tony was absolutely right to delete the original article. It was poorly written and clearly written from a strong POV, as the title and the first sentence indicated. Having read the article, it seems that its creator wrote it in the vein of "making a case for the prosecution" rather than the neutral approach required by WP:NPOV. User 24.215.205.169 also seems to have a deep misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is - he should take the time to read WP:NOT, specifically the bit under "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." However, I think the story of the OITC is an interesting and noteworthy one (it's made the news in four countries on three continents) and it's well worth an article, hence my support for a new version of the article. While I'm about it I'd also like to condemn the conduct of User:Executor-usa. Personally I wouldn't have unblocked him, and if he makes new legal threats over a recreated article I'll block him in a heartbeat. -- ChrisO 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Added: I strongly suspect that User:Executor-usa is Keith Scott, OITC's "executor" and one of the principal parties named in the recent OITC scandal in Fiji. As such, the WP:AUTO and WP:NOR policies should apply to his involvement in the recreated article. -- ChrisO 20:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe I would have more interest in learning about Wikipedia policies if they were respected by the Administrators themselves. The article in question was subject of a deletion debate, in which the consensus was to keep it and to move an/or modify it. This, as per Wikipedia Decision Policy, would have had for effect that the page should have remained, subject to the proposed changes. Of course, such was not the course of action, and no one here appears to find this discrepancy even a little troublesome. I insist, it seems that Wikipedia deletion debates are but a waste of time.--24.215.205.169

  Comment on Unbloking: So now one of the OITC people who vandalized the article and made legal threats has been unblocked. This adds to the fact that the other OITC person who made threats (the user by the name Waffleknocka), was never blocked. Maybe this is another instance of special circumstances in applying Wikipedia Policies?--24.215.205.169

• The interesting thing here is that every commenter agrees that WP should have an article about topic -- the only question at issue is whether previous content was "so very bad that it needed to die" or whether it was simply "very bad, but worth saving." This is, to some degree, a matter of subjective assessment. As often as I do disagree with Mr. Sidaway, he is committed to the preservation of articles, often beyond the point I think prudent. I will, thus, accept his use of closer's discretion here as a fair one. Endorse closure.

• Comment: I can't see the original article, but am interested in the reference to FT quotes. They usually say things along the lines of "Person x claimed such and such" rather than saying "such and such" directly. This is not always the case though. Does the FT article put the FT's weight behind the claims, or just report what other people are claiming? If the latter, I would say that the FT libel lawyers don't think the evidence is strong enough to defend a libel case, and we shouldn't rely on the FT article to make libelous claims. Stephen B Streater 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here goes the article:

COMPANIES: UK: Nothing ventured By Clay Harris Financial Times, Jun 23, 2005 [4]

Sellers of companies don't often get paid by postal order. But the accountants running failed carmaker MG Rover are now owners of one for £1, courtesy of a group calling itself the "Office of International Treasury Control".

The OITC paid the money as a deposit on its £10 bid for Rover, which it wants to restart with a "guaranteed" $5bn cash injection. The OITC, apparently based in Thailand, claims to be a secret part of the United Nations. The UN denies it exists and says there is no such thing as a "UN Charter Control Number", quoted by the organisation to prove its validity.--24.215.205.169

• Have an article but not this one. Looks like the FT looked into this a bit. I support having a short article constructed out of quotes/links of the more reputable sources, stating the issues, but not claiming any opinion itself. The more controversial the topic, the more bland and factual the article must be. Stephen B Streater 21:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete The only delete arguments after the nomination were Waffleknocker's legal threats; which should have been treated like other legal threats. Deleting this is not a good way to get it rewritten. Tony, please do send me the deleted text (my e-mail is enabled) and I will see what I can do. Septentrionalis 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with no prejudice against creation of a better article on a similar topic.-Polotet 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to bring to people's attention two related articles, Consolidated Credit Bank Limited and Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). I've nominated these for deletion here and here – I believe Wikipedia is being used for astroturfing. In addition, the same user (Waffleknocka (talk · contribs) responsible for those articles created a POV fork of the OITC article at The Office of International Treasury Control, which I've speedily deleted. -- ChrisO 12:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now created Office of International Treasury Control as a (hopefully) NPOV version of the deleted article, following the discussion above. Comments are welcome (to Talk:Office of International Treasury Control, please). Vandalism of the new article by either side will not be tolerated and will result in accounts being blocked if required. -- ChrisO 16:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 --Col. Hauler 11:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per my rationale above. --Col. Hauler (talk) 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)
• Keep Deleted per Zis guy and the fact that we aren't a crystal ball for unannounced and unverifiable game sequels. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per JzG.  RasputinAXP  c 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per JzG. Xoloz 00:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's very verifiable, look at the link. That's what the article looked like, it was perfectly sourced - it was only deleted because the old version of the article was terrible and got deleted before (a short stub citing nothing more than a YTMD page) - it's a good, encyclopedic, article now.
  JzG, this game has been announced, read the link, there's plenty of sourced quotes from the company that the game will be produced, just a release date has not been set. That's normal, lots of games have Wikipedia articles before their release date has been set (StarCraft: Ghost, Doom III, anyone? Exactly the same situation). There's no reason to delete this article whatsoever, I've refuted every claim that could be used for deletion and no one has been able to come up with a single good reason. It's very notable, it's very encylcopedic, it's completely verifiable and sourced. --Col. Hauler 11:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I have read the link Col. Hauler gave above, and there is no offical announcement, bar a non-committal "we do fully intend to revisit the world", and a verbal promise four years ago, neither of which are concrete enough to base an article on. Regards, MartinRe 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now, I'm afraid. (This is coming from someone who'd *kill* to have StarCraft II in his hands. =]) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. An announcement by a company isn't probative here, especially one as vague as the one linked above--all kinds of things are announced (see Vaporware) that never occur. Game companies are particularly notorious in this regard (see Duke Nukem Forever). · rodii · 12:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The fact that we've not yet deleted other articles which violate the "crystal ball" rule is no excuse to repeat the mistake here. Rossami (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet if Duke Nukem Forever has an article, so there should be one for StarCraft II. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." - All the stuff that was in the article (in it's state just prior to deletion) was verifiable, and certainly there's a wide enough interest to merit an article (just try googling "StarCraft 2"). --Col. Hauler 12:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're comparing apples and oranges. The Duke Nukem Forever article is primarily about its vaporware status. It's notable mainly for that, whereas Starcraft II isn't. There's no reason the verifiable material here couldn't be merged with Starcraft. · rodii · 15:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only fact in that article is that Blizzard intends to revisit the StarCraft universe. That's certainly nowhere near a confirmation that StarCraft II exists. The rest is just fan speculation. It's the same reason why Mario Party DS has been deleted multiple times and is now protected from recreation. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JzG and TheKoG. Barno 14:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, reluctantly. The deletion was out of process; the new article is significantly different than what was voted on previously. WP:SNOW might apply, but I think another AfD is not unreasonable. (A few notes: Duke Nukem Forever has an article because there are people whose job is to develop that specific game (or, at the very least, there have been in the past), and its prolonged development cycle is itself notable. Neither applies to SC2. Any relevant information on SC2 can easily be placed in the StarCraft article. None of this affects my decision on the issue at hand, though, which is whether the article was properly deleted. It was not.) Powers 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LtPowers. Mangojuice^talk 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Powers. Significantly different from article which went through AfD. JoshuaZ 05:13, 7 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)

How do we source any information? Hyacinth 20:15, 5 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)
• Endorse closure. While it's conceivable that a couple AfD voters were confused about the meaning of the term, the vote was, y'know, unanimous. LotLE×talk 15:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-create with only verifiable examples of people with perfect pitch (Mozart, Slonimsky, Julie Andrews, ...), and only allowing sourced items to be added to the list. It's an encyclopedic topic, and references to whether or not a famous musician had or did not have perfect pitch are relatively easy to come by. I don't see the point in undeleting the article since none of the names have references, and for this kind of list, references are desperately needed. (You cannot add references to a category, which is why this kind of information needs to be maintained as a list.) Antandrus (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You can, however, add references to an article to support addition to a category, and the editor community on that article will be likely to reject addition of a category which is not supported by evidence - whereas they may well not even notice addition to a list, cited or not. Just zis Guy you know? 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not my experience. Unsupported additions to cats are quite common; lists can be watched, categories can't (and a lot of editors haven't read WP:Categories and don't understand the support requirements. Septentrionalis 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • But you don't need to watch the category itself. We just need to trust that the people watching the article on, for example, Thomas Edison will see the category tag added to their article and will recognize it for vandalism and revert it. If all the articles that feed a category are kept clean, then the category page itself will be automatically kept clean. It's a decentralized approach to control. Rossami (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • "Trust but verify" - and it is significantly more difficult to check a cat and verify that the additions to it are not spam than to watch a list article. Septentrionalis 17:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The consensus was pretty clear. Many people have absolute pitch - I know around half a dozen (all amateur musicians). The list here would not grow too long as not all these are notable. The problem I think is that the coverage will be very patchy. Some vandal adds Bill Clinton to the list - well people may be able to check this I suppose. But then they add David Mellor. Who will be confident enough to revert it? The list will be suspect, and so not very useful. The category idea is also risky, but less prone to errors as editors will follow their favourite characters much more closely than a generic person said to have absolute pitch. Stephen B Streater 20:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I must endorse closure although I would have voted against it. AfD must have the power to make mistakes. Partial exemption from G4: any recreation is going to resemble some form of this article for a while. Septentrionalis 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crook

first nomination

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)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The discounting of votes was within reasonable admin discretion. Poor wording of a nomination is not sufficient grounds to overturn the community consensus. Rossami (talk) 20:17, 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,

- 6 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.)

Comment To be absolutely accurate, I did not vote for deletion. I offered a comment that the article itself was a "stub that doesn't seem to assert much (if any) notability." Although the article has been expanded slightly (very slightly), I still believe this is basically the case, and wish that somebody had devoted to the article half the effort they devoted to the AfD. Fan1967 14:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

- 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)

Never mind, ignore this section. Its point was lost on everyone. Its emphasis was meant to be on the discussion, not my summary of the voting. — GT 14:47, 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)

I decline to take part in a p*ssing contest -- you used my name in your argument: I sought my right of reply. That you disagree with my point of view, I accept: that you appear to find it offensive that I hold a point of view, I find offensive. Were it within my power, I would seek sanctions against you for bad faith -- it isn't, I cannot (apparently I have not made "enough" edits to Wiki to be counted as a "good" contributor -- which someone will doubtless say justifies your stance). I continue to offer no vote, given the circumstances. -- Simon Cursitor 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that we have made identical numbers of edits, I am not offended by your views. I was just curious as to whether you understood the deletion policy as it relates to stubs and if so how you reconciled your understanding of it with your recommendations here. As far as "bad faith" goes, feel free to make your case against me here or elsewhere. That is a pretty heavy allegation and if you can't already tell, I'm not very keen on making claims and then not supporting them. — GT 04:25, 6 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)
  • Thanks for the suggestion, I added the tag. So is she prominent by virtue of the fact that her unsourced WP article says so or what? — GT 13:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • See the bit where I said she looks as if she's a prominent bioconservative? That looks as if is the bit which needs to be established by sources, currently absent from the article. If it's not been sources or more categorically established after a month or so I will cheerfully vote delete. Drop me a note on my Talk page if I happen to miss the repeat nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 15:41, 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)
• 'Keep deleted. French.' --Col. Hauler 19:06, 5 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 [5]. 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)
    • Promoting the deletion policy is great. However, let's be a bit more honest here, eh? You disregarded the deletion policy in this case more than you promoted it. The answer you got is not unreasonable, now that other sources have been produced after the fact. I would rather see people put their argument IN the Afd and let it run longer to see if folks agree or disagree. I'm a product-over-process guy every time, but this could have gone more smoothly. Friday (talk) 14:05, 5 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)
• Comment: While the outcome is satisfactory one wonders if there wasn't a less disruptive way to achieve the same result, for example voting on AfD (the horror!) as the plebs must do , saying "[source] and [source] tell us that amongst librarians Dualabs is a byword for data obsolescence" and trusting the admin who closes the debate is swayed by the force of the argument and concludes that the article is worthy enough to keep. It appears that the action taken was to prove the point that the deletion policy is broken and I fully expect this debate to be recycled next time the subject comes up. Dr Zak 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the deletion policy seems to be working fine. Hence my close. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The deletion policy is fine. As usual the debate is about its implementation. Dr Zak 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps this should be relisted. It is highly possible that upon reviewing the debate as it existed, people simply didn't bother adding to it since the deicions seemed to be foregone. Eusebeus 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This wasn't controversial; it's just that nobody cared or even much thought about it until Tony took a look. There was no good reason to delete this article, and plenty of reasons not to. He could have voted, and brought this silliness to others' attention, and the debate would have become a keep—but that would have been more time for the same result. There's also no reason to use this non-incident as an excuse to debate Tony's approach to deletion. -- SCZenz 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Err, deletion review is most definitely the right place to review a deletion, is it not? This includes the merits of the article (which, to me, now, is a keeper) and the merits of the Afd closure, which to me, in this case, wasnt't handled all that well. Friday (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist I am not persuaded by Tony's argument; and he should have made it as an argument, and kept open, to see who agreed with it. Septentrionalis 04:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, let's get some more eyeballs on it. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:01, 5 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: [6] [7]
• 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

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."[[8]]
  • 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 [[9]] to get the song included in the Snakes on a Plane soundtrack.[[10]] 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)

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" - [11] - 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 - [12] - 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. [13]

  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 [14] (BBC) and have been confirmed as main support band for the Monkeys' upcoming tour [15] (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)
• Redirect per the above. Cynical 10:56, 7 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 - No consensus (with sockpuppets included).
• Third - Speedy Delete (due to contamination of the 2nd AFD by sockpuppets).

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)

Comment Lest anyone should infer from Double's recitation of my AfD comment that I concur with his/her assessment, I should note that I raised the same objections Calton raises here; I have elsewhere undertaken to explain why our ascription of apocryphal to the claims apropos of "Free the Children" wouldn't be original research (or otherwise a contravention of WP:V), but I won't recapitulate that argument here, if only because it's only tangentially related to the instant DRV. Joe 23:40, 4 May 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)

• It's a header, as should have been obvious to anyone with minimal reading skills. Inserting your comment only served to obfuscate that -- which I'm guessing was your intent. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• comment: This user's first edit was 29 April 2006, 5-days after this deletion review started. Thryduulf 23:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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 [16]. 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)

• You need to come up with less transparently bogus misreadings. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 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)

You can't even spell it correctly And you can't sockpuppet believably. My typing skills versus your transparent sockpuppetry -- which is a better sign of credibility? --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 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)

• You just call everybody a sockpuppet, don't you? No, I called the actual declared, confirmed sockpuppets, sockpuppets. I even used a number -- 2 -- that anyone can read. It's generally accepted that when making falsehoods, it's best not to do so immediately by things which demonstrably contracdict them -- you should learn that lesson. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 6 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) [17]. 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)

• I'm merely pointing out that repeatedly doing the same transparently obvious sockpuppetry isn't convincing the 12th or 20th time you do it -- and when I say "you", I don't mean the general you, I mean you, specifically. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 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) User's 15th-17th edit. G'wan, tell me you were surprised. --Calton | Talk 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Comment restored Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User:GoinHome has now been blocked, for reasons please see [18]. -- Curps 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And now he has created sockpuppets Goinhome, Goinhome1, Goinhome2, Goinhome3, Goinhome4 for the purpose of disrupting and vandalizing this Deletion review discussion just like he did for the AfDs. Accordinly, this page has been sprotected. -- Curps 06:36, 6 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)

• comment: This user's first edit was 29 April 2006, 5-days after this deletion review started. Thryduulf 23:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Comment restored. Moved by GoinHome underneath another editor's comments. Naughty naughty. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has now been blocked, for reasons please see [19]. -- Curps 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete this - it is a verifiable article about a candidate in an election. For great justice. 01:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and merge and carpet bomb Vaughan. That should solve the problem. Ground Zero | t 17:05, 7 May 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) [20] 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)

"African philosophy (in all its no-content, no-history glory"? Note -- again -- that the structure of the article was gutted by those who complained about cool being traced back to Africa (but could offer no scholarly rebuttal, just carping), and the criticized and brought up for deletion because people claimed they didn't understand what it was about. deeceevoice 09:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I fear you mistake my meaning, Deeceevoice. Please inspect each version here. You'll find that the content you're talking about, gutted or otherwise, every version of it, is actually here. You're talking about a different article than the one named in the header of this discussion. "Cool (African philosophy)", on the Wiki, is a location. It's the location where you made those edits. Now it's an empty location, and your edits are, counterintuitively enough, in the "history" of Cool (African aesthetic). -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:04, 7 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 [21] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[22] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [23] 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. [24] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [25] 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 [26]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [27] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [28] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [29] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [30] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [31] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [32] 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 [33] 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. [34] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [35] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[36] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[37] 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. [38] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [39] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [40] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [41] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [42] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [43] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [44] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [45] 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. [46] 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. [47] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [48] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [49] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [50], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [51] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [52] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [53] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [54] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [55] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [56] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [57] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [58] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [59] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [60] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [61] 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 [62]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. [63] 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 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 16}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

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

7 May 2006

Nephew (band)

I'm very much a rookie in the enwiki deletion process, so bare with me and help me, please. :)

I've discovered, that the well-known danish band, Nephew (band), has been deleted due to some non-danish theories about the band. English wikipedia has an article about it's lead singer, Simon Kvamm, and both the danish and the german wikipedia has an article about the band. They do sing primarily in danish as to why they are not huge outside of Denmark, but they are very well known, and their record from 2004, USADSB, has had huge record sales. At the Danish Music Awards in 2005, the band won best album, best band, best rock album, best music video and best hit. The band website also has a complete english version now (which is one of the complaints in the deletion discussion).

I vote for undeletion, if the deleted article had any interesting content.

--Morten Barklund ^{[ talk / contribs ]} 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete - notability now established per WP:MUSIC; details above should be incorporated into article. Aquilina 15:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Misunderstanding The article which was deleted was NOT a Danish band, but a British band (the article was a substub and the UK Nephew didn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC). The Danish Nephew does meet WP:MUSIC by quite a large margin (awards, a platinum album, etc). Keep the old article deleted, and just make a new one about the Danish band. Nobody would object. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The new article would go under the same name, Nephew (band), and this would be all right with respect to this article name having an older version with a deletion process for a totally different article? As I could not see the contents of the old article, I just assumed it was about the fairly well-known danish band. Just to make sure, there is no current article about this danish band under some other name, correct? It does not appear so, but just to make sure. Otherwise, this deletion review is irrelevant. --Morten Barklund ^{[ talk / contribs ]} 16:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no article on the band Nephew in the English wikipedia. Starting a new article at the same name would be fine, though my advice would be to throw a sentence or two on the new article's talk page explaining the situation with the old AfD, so some admin doesn't mistakenly delete it as a re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghey

It now turns out to get increasing number of search engine results 400,000;407,000;416,000 (YAHOO!). It is/has become a proofable internet phenomena at least. I would like to get it undeleted, because the deleted page appers at top of search results, and it looks like wikipedia performs censorship. My argumentation is that wikipedia maintains entries with ~500 hits, like Cocacolonization, or 94 hits, like Nipponisation. The number of search engine hits, which link to verifyable different sites, show an remarkable interest of the public in the subject of Ghey.

see Skeletor (called ghey on the net).

416,000 hits for "Ghey", and its means something different. See Amy, Ami - it is also a name. I believe i am allowed to argue here, opposed to Afd.

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 742,000 for ghey. Wikipedia probably needs to redirect/protect it. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment It seems like the user is trying to make a WP:POINT, firstly by nominating Cocacolonization for AfD and secondly for using it and this section as evidence for the point. Ansell 10:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to gay, as a misspelling. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there "notable" uses other than Gay#Pejorative usage? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 13:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Don't be ghey. Go BUY it for like $15 US dollars. Order it from chips and bits, I'm sure it's cheap. - sense of meaning of lame. nothing sexual/orientation related. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 13:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Beginning in the 1990s and especially in the 2000s the usage became common among young people, who may or may not link the term to homosexuality." --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's the AfD? Can this article ever be anything more than a dicdef? Any way to see what the article looked like before it was deleted? Powers 13:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a VfD linked to on the protected page, but from July 2004 (which the initiator of this edited a week ago). The deletion log did record a deletion of this on March 27, and the content of the article was listed in the reason. It was, indeed, a simple dicdef. WarpstarRider 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Leave protected Lots of hits, but no definitive meaning of the slang word. Possible redirect to Gay (disambiguation) due to different meanings, as redirecting to one in particular would be validation on one variant without a reference. MartinRe 13:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm inclined to leave this entry deleted for the point that Powers makes: even if it were notable on its own, it should be transwikied to wikidictionary. Bucketsofg✐ 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Either keep deleted or redirect to the disambig page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Create a page with a link to Wiktionary:ghey and Gay (disambiguation) or redirect to Gay (disambiguation) and link to the Wiktionary page from there. I'm not certain which would be best, - can a disambig page have just one internal and one interwiki link? Thryduulf 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

6 May 2006

Automobile/Motor Manufacturer CFD

At the end of a CFD to move Automobile/Motor Manufacturers to the "Company of Foo" format, there seemed to be a good body of opinion in favour but with the caveat of Motor Manufacturers rather than Automobile Manufacturers where this is local usage, which was an alteration from the original nomination. User:Cyde then put User:Cydebot to work altering all of the categories as per the nomination without reference to the CFD disscussion. Noticing this in progress I posted to Cyde's talk page then having had no response to Bots. Some 10 hours later User:Tim! closed the CFD noting that Cyde had already done the rename, I then posted to Tim! as per the advice given on the Bot noticeboard, who replied on my talk page. Cyde later replied on his talk page with a comment that seems to justify over ruling any CFD at the will of the closing Admin.

I suggest that the categories be renamed, or at least full consideration is given renaming them, inline with the CFD discussion. Ian3055 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008

I nominate that this page be unprotected. There is no good reason to not re-create this page aside from the fact that it was created one time as a bogus article and used for WP:POINT. Whilst WP:POINT does forbid the creation of articles just to prove a point, the guidline is not intended to be used by admins to unfairly penalize one side of the political spectrum over another. If an editor has good sources to compose this article, he or she should be allowed to do so and then be afforded the same right to go through a contested AfD process, at least up until we have consensus on how to deal with these articles. BlueGoose 20:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and protection For heavens' sake, this doesn't penalize one side of the political spectrum: Rationales for voting for Hillary in 2008 would be just as bad, and just as quickly deleted. Having Rationales for doing X and Rationales for not doing X is not NPOV, and is needless forking. The solution is to merge arguments for and against X into the article X. I've never checked Sen. Clinton's article, but I bet it has a criticism section. There you are. Xoloz 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete iff Bush article is kept on AfD. Otherwise keep deleted.  Grue  20:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Which Bush article? By the way, the entire content of this article was, Some advocates of not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008, point out that she's a mother fucking dyke on a motherfucking plane with some motherfucking snakes. So, er, endorse the motherfucking deletion. - ulayiti (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• endorse deletion as per Ulayiti. Thryduulf 21:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Block the creator for personal attacks and trolling. (And yes, that is a keep deleted.) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• WTF? Endorse deletion whatever happens to the Bush AfD, and slap the creator with a trout. --Doc ^ask? 22:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Existence of one bad article does not imply existence of others is good. Also Wikipedia is not a soap box. This is an easy one. Stephen B Streater 22:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

*Restore and ban Doc and Titoxd for personal attacks. Brownman40 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of BlueGoose (talk · contribs). -- Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• • There is nothing personal in attacking the creator of a WP:POINT violating article with a trout. Indeed, since I've not looked to see who created it, it can hardly be personal. All such people should be [very impersonally] so slapped. Gah! --Doc ^ask? 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse of course. Kudos to Brownman40 for what is either the best example of irony in this whole sorry mess or a superb example of missing the point by a margin unmeasurable without recourse to astronomical measurement units. Just zis Guy you know? 23:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but remove protection - For consistency's sake, I have to say "delete". But, also for consistency's sake, if "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush" survives its AfD (yet again), we must also allow this article to be re-created as long as it is equally sourced, NPOV, etc.--WilliamThweatt 23:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• A couple of points
  • I endorse the deletion, but I'm requesting that that the protection is removed. I'm not condoning the article creator, but is permanent protection really necessary?
  • Let's bring some civility back to this discussion, please. BlueGoose 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse -- Cruft...need I say more.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 02:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and deleted any article entitled "Rationales for not voting for X". Gamaliel 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion and endorse the blocking of the troll who created (and then re-created) the article. The protection does seem unnecessary though I must also admit that I can not see any possibility of Wikipedia ever having an allowable article under this title. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and beat someone with a trout. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. As Xoloz notes above, this kind of article is POV and turns wikipedia into a soapbox. Bucketsofg✐ 17:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• How could this possibly not end up a POV fest? Delete any sort of article along these lines. Endorse deletion and Keep Deleted ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted, I guess it is only typical that Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush has survived two AfD's and is now on its third run, such is the state of NPOV on WP. Perhaps the advocates against this one can put the same strong case against the other?--Kalsermar 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself, I voted to merge content on that the controversial Bush fork to Movement to Impeach George W. Bush. This is entirely consistent with my suggestion above that (had the Clinton fork in question contained anything worthwhile) the place for that content, critical of Sen. Clinton, is her article. I expect the Bush fork will be merged, and no double standard will exist. Xoloz 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This whole thing was a WP:BEANS. --Cyde Weys 19:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sports betting forum

I would like to request that this article be restored.

On 15 January 2006, administrator FCYTravis, nominated the article to be deleted.

The result of the debate as announced by administrator Johnleemk on 20 January 2006 was to keep the article without any qualifications.

FCYTravis ignored the result and speedily deleted the article on 21 January 2006 [64].

Critic 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and keep BlueGoose 20:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - none of 'misnamed, impossibly written, unsourced, not verifiable, POV' are criteria for speedy deletion. - ulayiti (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, clear consensus, and there didn't appear to be any issues regarding policy or guideline to ignore the result. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist: An orphaned article where people voted to 'keep and cleanup', but three and a half months later no-one has? *drops monocle* But it should have been relisted at AfD, and then it should have been deleted unless someone found verification, in defiance of a 69%-for-deletion-'no-consensus' if necessary. I will vote delete when/if it is relisted, but this isn't a case of WP:SNOW. (Really, if I was Jimbo, I would decree that all 'Keep and cleanup' votes for orphaned articles would be forever null and void. If you work to improve a hopeless article that no-one will ever read, you are mad.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Of course I can't write on behalf of the other six editors who voted to keep the article, but I simply assumed that the article had been deleted correctly according to Wikipedia policies. I did not know the outcome of the AfD until yesterday, because once the article was deleted, there was no obvious link to the AfD (this may seem obvious to administrators, but it is not to ordinary editors - figuring out how to formally request a reversal of the deletion also took a lot of time). I only discovered yesterday that FCYTravis had carried out his threat to abuse his administration powers as he said he would in the AfD by deleting the article notwithstanding its outcome. My recollection was that the article was not orphaned at the time, and it was the stated opinion of most of the editors who voted for its retention that the article had potential, notwithstanding the faults that it had. Critic 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Why waste any more time? As Travis said, "misnamed, impossibly written, unsourced, not verifiable, POV and anything else you want to throw at it." Hard to find a single policy it doesn't violate, in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Speedy was invalid, and Afd was keep, Nominating an article for afd and then ignoring the result is very poor form for an admin. MartinRe 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• weak undelete and relist Sam's logic is good, but I'm not in strong agreement with him due to the general lack of any expansion/clean up between the previous AfD and its out of process deletion. JoshuaZ 05:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete and keep, while "not verifiable" can be a speedy deletion criteria in certain circumstances (CSD G1 "patent nonsense", A7 "non-notability") they do not apply to this article. None of the other reasons given are valid under any circumstances. Thryduulf 22:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC) PS: user:Malthusian's comment in the AfD is definately worth copying to a list of great deletion debate quotes - I'm sure I've seen one but I've got no idea where!
  • Comment, I've readdded this as this edit by Doc Glasgow (which looks like an edit conflict with himself?) somehow removed it - almost certainly unintentionally. Thryduulf 08:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and probably relist. The article should probably be deleted, but speedying is inappropriate here. Furthermore, that the speedying was done by AfD nominating user, in disregard for the consensus reached, immediately after the AfD closed, is in exceptionally poor form, and I would like to see an explanation as to why FCYTravis thought this was appropriate. I also do not see that the deletion justifications are in CSD. I would expect an administrator to know what is and is not in CSD, and to justify speedying accordingly. --Philosophus ^T 08:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll add a {{DRVNote}} to the talkpage of the admin in question, as they may be unaware this debate is ongoing. MartinRe 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, a lot of admins ignore the CSD (or at least interpret them much too liberally) when speedying articles they don't like. - ulayiti (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unless someone here commits right now to a complete rewrite - because the article is not useful and should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's an unsourced POV original-research essay - it's like a laundry list of everything Wikipedia is not and hence no amount of "voting" can change the fact that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Who says that there's "sports betting forum etiquette?" Which published source says that "When making a prediction on a sports betting forum, members are expected to provide a rationale for their "play" (as shown above). Simply stating the teams that you think will win does not help other members of the sports betting community?" This is a pile of junk that sat around for months with nobody caring to so much as touch it. I nominated it for AFD, and everyone screamed "it needs cleanup" - yet not a single person said they were willing to do it. Now everyone wants to scream OMG OUT OF PROCESS. Hey, guess what? Nobody even noticed its disappearance. That means to me that nobody who voted 'keep' in the AFD was interested in fixing the article. I would support a complete sourced rewrite of the article. If someone here publicly commits to cleaning it up and sourcing it within the next week, I'll support its immediate undeletion (and move to a proper title). But I will not support the undeletion of another complete crap article that will simply sit around for another six months with nobody so much as bothering to lift a finger to fix it. So put up or shut up. FCYTravis 13:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If an afd returns 'keep, with cleanup', and the cleanup doesn't happen after a reasonable time, then the best thing to do would be afd it again, with that extra infomation, not speedy it. Regards, MartinRe 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The article had sat around untouched for months already. There is no evidence to suggest that another two months with a WP:CLEANUP tag would have made any difference. None of those voting keep volunteered to clean it up. The offer stands - if someone commits to cleaning up, sourcing and encyclopedizing the article, I will immediately undelete it and close this debate. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? FCYTravis 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Maybe I missed something, but this was speedied the day after the AfD, right? I know there are a class of editors (anons) thereby rendered unable to improve the topic's coverage. Many registered editors find the "red link" blank page daunting as well. Speedy deleting it drastically reduced the chance anyone would provide a tidy copy, so citing all the time that has passed without new work is not especially compelling. Additionally, reversing the closure of another admin one day later, particularly when one was the nominator in the first place, is very bad form. This pedia is not anyone's plaything, and no single person should so strongly assert his judgment against a contrary consensus, for doing so undermines the comity and professionalism of the community (even if the single person is right, mind you.) Further: When this is relisted, if it is kept, I will ensure that it is a sound article within a month after closure. (I'm busy, so I need a little time.) Xoloz 17:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have undeleted, moved and stubbed the article per your offer to clean it up and rewrite it. FCYTravis 17:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

VOIPBuster

The page on VOIPBuster should not have been deleted. It is about a useful VOIP resource and many similar instant messengers are already featured on Wikipedia.

After the first deletions calling it an advertisement, I reworked the content and made it more facts-oriented. Did the admin see the updated version before deleting it again? I was not even notified of this deletion. I used to believe that such decisions were made after informing the contributor!

Please, Please, Please RESTORE this page for the benefit of another wikipedians. It is not an advertisement as much as Rediff BOL, another instant messenger entry on Wikipedia is not an advertisement.

--Vishaltayal 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Assertion for Notability: as per WP:N

• Featured in The Guardian, Tech Review Section
• Features in Telecom Paper link here
• Tagged in Download.com as Popular with 6,720 downloads as on 7th May 2006.link here

--Vishaltayal 11:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have notified Makemi at his talk page so that he can undelete and list this article on AfD as per the consensus.--vishaltayal 18:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD. Was deleted out of process with the non-existent CSD 'advertising', and from then on as previously deleted content (even though it was deleted out of process), twice with summaries calling it 'sickening' (WP:BITE, anyone?). Not very admirable behaviour for admins. - ulayiti (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD. While this does read like advertising to me, this is not a speedy deletion criteria. The admin who called this "sickening" should be ashamed. Thryduulf 22:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, WP:SNOW. The "facts-oriented" version is still spam. Just zis Guy you know? 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If VOIPBuster is considered to be an advert, we also need to delete from Wikipedia, many other instant messengers which hardly anyone else knows about i.e they can also be considered as advertisements of their respective companies. Deleting some and keeping others is NOT FAIR. Some examples are Camfrog, Rediff BOL and Nate. I wonder how are these kept!--Vishaltayal 07:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW is not policy, especially when this is about a speedy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on Afd Neither Spam, nor WP:SNOW are valid reasons for speedy deletions, and even articles that start out at adverts may often be salvagable. (google returns about 750,000 results, so it's conceivable that this is notable enough to pass Afd) Regards, MartinRe 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick search found one such link: a review from The Guardian discussing Skype, Vonage and Voipbuster[65]. Regards, MartinRe 11:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD per above. WP:SNOW should not be used to defend an admin's revert warring over an invalid-on-its-face Speedy. Vslashg (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AfD. This is not a valid speedy, per the above. Cynical 10:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and AfD The sources given convince me that WP:SNOW does not apply. No other remotely valid speedy rationale has been given. Xoloz 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have restored the article. In light of the sources given, I will not myself put it up for AfD. However, I was under the impression that posts of straight advertising by someone who clearly works for the company were often speedied, but perhaps I acted too rashly in this case. I maintain, however, that it was pretty sickening advertising, and if you're the advertising guy for a company, you should be able to take it. I think we as a community need to talk seriously about how Wikipedia is used for advertising and how we should deal with it. I hate spam, and I hate dealing with it, and I don't think it should be content in an encyclopedia, but others are free to disagree. Mak (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I DO NOT work for VOIPBuster. It is simply a product I use as much as I use Skype, MSN Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger, all of which have their respective articles on Wikipedia. My article on this product was based on its utility and popularity and not for any other purpose.--vishaltayal 20:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

5 May 2006

YMF-X000A Dreadnought Gundam

This AfD was inappropriately closed early by User:Starblind. Deletion policy states that "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." The closing is even more inappropriate because Starblind voted in the discussion, and because it wasn't even allowed to run for 24 hours. Please relist this and let it run its course on AfD. --Hetar 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse close (obviously, as I was the closer). The nominator has listed no fewer than six Gundam articles for AfD in the past few weeks, all which ended in keep and all "lopsided" enough that there was no chance whatsoever of deletion of any of them. We have dozens (perhaps hundreds) of Gundam articles... what good does it do for the encyclopedia to create a completely hopeless AfD for each one? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist closer 'voted', not even 24 hours, not bad faith, there is a significant amount of people that did not vote to keep in all of the AFDs and most of the people voting keep happened to edit the articles or other SEED articles. Kotepho 05:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I know a pile-on when I see one. No way this debate could have produced consensus to delete. David | Talk 13:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Based on the account provided by Starblind, he had compelling reason to think this was a bad-faith AfD/violation of WP:POINT. As such, early closure was entirely within his discretion. Xoloz 13:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure with slight reservations Given the precedent of recent closely related afd's, and similar voting trend in this one, a speedy keep seems reasonable (although it wouldn't have hurt to let it continue), even if not explicitly covered by WP:SK. However it would have looked better to let an admin who hadn't voted close it, even if the result would have been the same. Regards, MartinRe 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure with slight reservations What MartinRe said. JoshuaZ 22:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure although an uninvolved admin would have been more appropriate. No point in repeated refights of the same battle, with predictable outcome. --Rob 22:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Upfront Rewards

• 16:09, 3 April 2006 Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", providing the edit summary: (complete slander). Now, obviously, his claim is false; one could argue that it's libel, but it's certainly not slander! But that's just a technicality, and I don't mean to engage in Wikilawyering, other than for comic effect; Zanimum just doesn't know the meaning of the word 'slander'. Seriously, Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", apparently because he felt it was libelous. However, he deleted a large amount of sourced, verifiable content as well, and I also dispute that it was libelous (I would opine that speedy deletion, which seems to be what occured, is appropriate in actual cases of libel.) If someone could restore, and/or make available to me the deleted version (this?), so we can come to some amicable agreement as to what is appropriate for the article, (and slander :) ) that would be appreciated. In addition, opinions as to what in the deleted article might have been considered libelous, given the verifiable sources, would be appreciated as well. There were efforts to balance the article - inclusion of positive and negative statements; admittedly, it could be less disparaging, and I'll work more on that. I would like to work toward restoring sourced claims while respecting NPOV and avoiding libelous statements. Efforts to resolve the issue have failed - Zanimum has been unresponsive to posts to the page and Talk:Upfront_Rewards. Prior to the deletion, I had done research to find further sources to back up other claims I added and would like to add, and was the only editor to make any effort to reconcile views (IIRC). I'm happy to hash this all out on the :talk page prior to edits of the article. Elvey 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As requested, I have reviewed the deleted content. While it probably did not qualify for any of the narrow speedy-deletion criteria, I decline to undelete it. I concur with Zanimum's core assessment that the deleted content was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If an article on this topic is appropriate, it will be better to start the article from scratch. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not really what I (intended to) request but thanks for your time. The content of the deleted article is what I asked for. I do have a valid email address registered, for [66].

Would an admin please make it available?

Hello? Would someone email it to me?

Email it to whom? Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously Elvey, three lines up. · rodii · 11:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Still looking for help in this regard. I'd also like the history; to research IPs and such of editors. Rossami, be so civil as not to delete this, thanks. Stifle, are you going to send it? --Elvey 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upfront Rewards refers. 4:1 delete, plus nom, with Elvey (talk · contribs) above the sole Keep vote. I'm not sure if Elvey wants the version as deleted or his original hatchet job, but it's hard to think why anyone would want either. Just zis Guy you know? 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

David Anber

I'm new at this so please excuse me if I am doing this wrong. I would like to nominate an article for deletion review. It was deleted and I believe that the closing admin misinterpreted the debate.

I suggest that the proper outcome of the debate was No Consensus and by implication should be kept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Anber

In his reasons, the closing admin stated: "There are intelligent arguments on both sides, and ultimately it came down to the numbers."

There are two things wrong with this analysis: 1. A significant minority gave a number of reasons why the article should be kept. The closing admin's reasons do not indicate that the reasons of the article's proponents were defeated, he said it came down to numbers, which I believe is misreading the lack of consensus here.

2. As for the numbers, there was a roughly equal number of justified and elaborated arguments on both sides. Many users posted without giving reasons why. I think this contributes to the argument that there really isn't consensus. The posters in favour of the article could have enlisted other people to parrot their arguments "as per so and so" but they did not. The numbers should be read in light of the numbers of arguments rather than the number of votes.

I would like to see this article restored simply because of lack of consensus:

"Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin. If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Find lack of consensus from original AFD debate and as a result: undelete CLEAR POLI SCI JUNKIE 07:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion A number of the keep arguments came from anon and new users, which the admin is entitled take into account. Based on the numbers and arguments, it boils down to whether to not the subject meets WP:BIO. Based on the afd, it appears that generally the opinion was "not yet" (so no objection to creation in the future if more notable achievements are brought to light) MartinRe 11:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, close was valid. To address Amber's comment, "I'd be a bit disappointed if fewer and fewer comparable "footnote-type-tid-bits" were weeded out of Wikipedia. I like being able to look up a topic and find little tiny facts that I can't find elsewhere", no articles link to this one, which for me is an almost certain indication that this isn't encyclopaedia material. Pretty much the only people looking up David Amber are going to be people personally connected with him, and an encyclopaedia does not cater for this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and I forgot the obvious point: A little tiny fact that can't be found elsewhere violates WP:V. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid and properly-closed AfD. Discounting anon and new-user votes isn't just a possibility, it's a universal practice. Also, I agree with Samuel's comments above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Andrew Lenahan. DarthVader 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per MartinRe and Starblind. Whatever their good intentions, we cannot trust anonymous and very new users to understand WP policy, and it is within administrative discretion to discount them. Xoloz 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Undeletion What many people are failing to consider is that many people in politics, myself included, prefer to protect our identities especially when commenting on people that we come across in the political field. This happens more often in politics than other fields, due to the nature of the beast. The arguments in favor of keeping the article were persuasive enough to result in lack of consensus.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.122.119.146 (talk • contribs) . -- Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• How do you know people are failing to consider it? What you describe is reasonable, but one of the costs of it is that you lose credibility in deletion debates. It's a choice you make. Having an account here doesn't necessarily mean you have less anonymity anyway--if you don't want people to know who you are, don't disclose personal information. The upside is that as you develop a stable identity here, the credibility problem goes away. · rodii · 16:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• So why not create an account which protects your identity but gives you a handle that people can come to know you by? You don't have to use a real name, you can use just about anything non-offensive as a user name, but it will be the same as being "you" to people who interact with you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• If you have an account with a pseudonym, you're more anonymous than when you contribute with an IP address that can be traced. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

4 May 2006

OITC fraud

This was a very difficult close. The article was extremely biased, to the extent that it appeared to be a hatchet job. The article named several individuals and associated them with criminal activities, and most of the references given seem to establish simply that there is no such organisation as OITC.

In the circumstances, I believe that no good is served by the continued existence of the piece, and a clean rewrite is best. My close was as follows:

Delete as misinformation. I will readily send any verifiable, non-defamatory content from this article to anyone who wishes to write a proper article on this subject. In the meantime, I think the best thing we can do with this strongly biased and confusing concoction is to delete it lest some innocent party should be wrongly associated with the random wrongdoings alleged.

24.215.205.169 (talk · contribs) has queried it and I think it should be reviewed. I continue to maintain my offer to send the non-defamatory sections of this article to those who want to make a good faith attempt to rewrite this article to Wikipedia standards. --Tony Sidaway 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OITC fraud and prior, no consensus afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of International Treasury Control

• Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article
  Today an administrator by the name Tony Sidaway deleted the article in reference, saying that "the result of the debate was delete as misinformation". As any person who checks the deletion debate can ascertain, this is simply not true. The majority of Wikipedia users that intervened in the debate (7, to my count), voted to keep and/or move or clean. Only two, including one of the people who initially vandalized the article, voted for deletion.
  The article was not a "hatchet job". It was a compilation of newspaper articles (including texts from the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph), and governmental press releases. Weeks of serious research went into retrieving and sourcing such information. The purpose was to provide information about a shadowy entity that seems to thrive and take advantage of secrecy. For fairness, even the point of view of the OITC was given.
  If there is no respect whatsoever for the results of a deletion debate, as in this case, what is the sense of having one? I respectfully request the reinstatement of the article. An explanation by Tony Sidaway would also be appropriate. --24.215.205.169
• Keep deleted (for now) (Tony never deletes articles lightly) this is bias-infested with large POV and WP:V problems. Notmally I'd say keep and clean-up but this is beyond that. However, if someone wants to rebuild the article under a better name with proper balance and sources, I'd be willing to let them try. --Doc ^ask? 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• My reading of the two AfDs is that it has been verified that OITC is a scam about which the United Nations have made official statements. My opinion is that there ought to be an article about the scam, so undelete verifable, non-defamatory content and move it to Office of International Treasury Control. OITC should be a redirect there (as per Sam Blanning in the 2nd afd). The article will need to have an eye kept on it to ensure it is verifiable and NPOV. Thryduulf 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. And I don't do this lightly, because an article about a fraud scheme is difficult to create and must be backed up by good sources. On the other hand, we cannot take the article away because someone doesn't like the thing to be covered in Wikipedia. Things with considerable media attention should be covered, even if those people involved don't like it being covered. We don't delete the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal for instance. Creation of such articles must of course be done very conscientiously, seriously and cautiously. (On a related matter, shocking new info on frauds should not be uncovered on Wikipedia, such is original research and unverifiable, but letting Wikipedia be a tertiary source for whatever has been presented in newspapers is a different matter. In this case, I think the very important WP:V condition is met because the article has been very concsientiously sourced. There are inline external links provided to back up nearly all, if not all the claims in the article (slight uncertainty here because I cannot read the Spanish). Also, the issue of WP:NPOV is extremely difficult to resolve when the article is in a deleted state. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and allow for the creation of Office of International Treasury Control. For the record, I voted "move and keep" in the original AfD. So long as Tony is willing to see this through and email non-defamatory sections of the article to whomever wants to try to create something NPOV, I don't really see the point in overturning this. JDoorjam Talk 14:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Being new here, I was under the impression that the deletion debate was a democratic process, and that the result was based on how many people voted for deleting/keeping and article. As per Tony Sidaway's actions of today and as per your comment, I believe now I was mistaken. It seems that any article can be deleted, no matter what is the result of the debate. Is sufficient that some Adminsitrator find it deletable. Are then deletion debates a pointeless waste of time? --24.215.205.169
    • Comment: Deletion discussions are not pointless but they very definitely are not "democratic" in the sense that most people think of when they use that word. We are emphatically not "voting" in deletion discussions. Please read Wikipedia:Voting is evil and the Guide to deletion for more. Rossami (talk)
• Endorse deletion but allow creation of a verifiable article under the title Office of International Treasury Control. Thatcher131 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The very title is prejudicial; the allegations in the article are (depending on your reading of them) either libellous or not notable. The sourcing is obviously unsatisfactory for allegations of this nature. The article is at best useless and at worst dangerous for Wikipedia: nothing can be salvaged which would help the creation of a proper article on the subject, even if such an article were deemed desirable. Physchim62 (talk)
  • Comment, The article was originally entitled Office of International Treasury Control. It was a Wikipedia Administrator who changed the title. The sources include the Financial Times. View your comment, one can draw the conclusion that such a newspaper is too low to be a source. Thus, do please enlighten us, what sourcing would be satisfactory to Wikipedia? --24.215.205.169

14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, per concerns over unsourced claims regarding living people. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, All the claims in the article are sourced. When living people are mentioned, it is in the context of newspaper articles and governmental press releases. If you or any other Wikipedia user would take the time of reading the article and considering it along with the sourcing, your will see how careful in finding verifiable sources we have been.--24.215.205.169
    • While the newspaper articles themselves are okay as far as they go, the problem with the deleted article arose because individuals were named and associated with serious lawbreaking. We'd need much stronger sources than those provided to support such serious allegations. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, Thus, as per your reasoning, no living individual should be named in connection with possible illegal activities, no matter how many governmental sources or newspaper articles mention them in such context? I disagree with such opinion. There are many Wikipedia articles that mention people in relation to illegal activities on the basis of published information. One, for example is the Dominion of Melchizedek, with which, by the way, some of the OITC people have been linked. --24.215.205.169
• Comment, Just to add to the discussion, we would like to point out the reason behind the research and publication of the article about OITC in Wikipedia. We believe the lack of information on the Internet about the OITC makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people around the world to make an informed decision about their "offers". Very few people have the time, ressources or patience to do as full a search on newspapers and governmental websites as we have, to have a full idea of their background. On the other hand, OITC people are active in many fora, always anonymously, disseminating their "information" and attacking whoever dares contradict them, taking advantage of the lack of data on their activities. We believed Wikipedia was an open and unbiased space in which properly sourced data could be made accesible. We still hope our expectation would be proven right. --24.215.205.169
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compedium of fact, not an investigative news service. That said, you should take Tony up on his offer to provide you with a copy of the article. Work on it in your user space, and when you think it is ready, post an announcement and ask for comments before you move it to main space (not sure where such an announcement should go, maybe WP:ANI or one of the Villiage Pumps). Thatcher131 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Thanks for your kind offer, but we do have a full copy of the article and therefore the assistance of Tony Sidaway's is unnecesary. About your comment, the article in question is a compendium of fact, sourced with 36 links that anyone could verify. How many more links are you required to include to make it acceptable? It is precisely because of this that we are requesting its reinstatement. --24.215.205.169
    • Well, first of all the article should have a neutral title, such as suggested above. I know it was moved; there's no point in rehashing that again. Second, your sources should be things that in principle any wikipedian could verify. Public records and newspaper articles and such. Private e-mails, letters, and the results of your own investigation should be excluded except references to sources as I described. Fourth, don't make specific accusations of fraud or criminal activity until there has been an arrest or conviction. You can say, The OITC has promised this...however, other sources can not verify etc. Fifth, I am somewhat disturbed by your attitude that you need to use wikipedia to publicize this case. Wikipedia is not meant to be used by anybody for publicity. If the event or group is not very well known that is a sign it does not belong in an encyclopedia. There are millions of con artists in the world and maybe these people aren't that big a deal to the world at large (although they may be very important to the people affected by the alleged fraud). If you believe it meets these goals you should put it on a user sub-page and ask for comment. Thatcher131 16:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, First, indulging in rehearsing for the benefit of whomever has not read precedent posts, it was a Wikipedia Administrator who changed the title. Second, no e-mails, fora postings or chat transcriptions were used as sources of the article. All the links were to newspapers, such as The Financial Times, and governmental sites, such as the Fiji Police. I belive you have not reviewd the article properly if you have not realized this. Third, we have stated what was the intention behind the article. This in no way disacredits the contents, very well sourced as they are. Fourth, again, we request the results of the original deletion debate are respected and the article is reinstated. --24.215.205.169
• Keep deleted and create Office of International Treasury Control. Tony was absolutely right to delete the original article. It was poorly written and clearly written from a strong POV, as the title and the first sentence indicated. Having read the article, it seems that its creator wrote it in the vein of "making a case for the prosecution" rather than the neutral approach required by WP:NPOV. User 24.215.205.169 also seems to have a deep misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is - he should take the time to read WP:NOT, specifically the bit under "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." However, I think the story of the OITC is an interesting and noteworthy one (it's made the news in four countries on three continents) and it's well worth an article, hence my support for a new version of the article. While I'm about it I'd also like to condemn the conduct of User:Executor-usa. Personally I wouldn't have unblocked him, and if he makes new legal threats over a recreated article I'll block him in a heartbeat. -- ChrisO 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Added: I strongly suspect that User:Executor-usa is Keith Scott, OITC's "executor" and one of the principal parties named in the recent OITC scandal in Fiji. As such, the WP:AUTO and WP:NOR policies should apply to his involvement in the recreated article. -- ChrisO 20:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe I would have more interest in learning about Wikipedia policies if they were respected by the Administrators themselves. The article in question was subject of a deletion debate, in which the consensus was to keep it and to move an/or modify it. This, as per Wikipedia Decision Policy, would have had for effect that the page should have remained, subject to the proposed changes. Of course, such was not the course of action, and no one here appears to find this discrepancy even a little troublesome. I insist, it seems that Wikipedia deletion debates are but a waste of time.--24.215.205.169

  Comment on Unbloking: So now one of the OITC people who vandalized the article and made legal threats has been unblocked. This adds to the fact that the other OITC person who made threats (the user by the name Waffleknocka), was never blocked. Maybe this is another instance of special circumstances in applying Wikipedia Policies?--24.215.205.169

• The interesting thing here is that every commenter agrees that WP should have an article about topic -- the only question at issue is whether previous content was "so very bad that it needed to die" or whether it was simply "very bad, but worth saving." This is, to some degree, a matter of subjective assessment. As often as I do disagree with Mr. Sidaway, he is committed to the preservation of articles, often beyond the point I think prudent. I will, thus, accept his use of closer's discretion here as a fair one. Endorse closure.

• Comment: I can't see the original article, but am interested in the reference to FT quotes. They usually say things along the lines of "Person x claimed such and such" rather than saying "such and such" directly. This is not always the case though. Does the FT article put the FT's weight behind the claims, or just report what other people are claiming? If the latter, I would say that the FT libel lawyers don't think the evidence is strong enough to defend a libel case, and we shouldn't rely on the FT article to make libelous claims. Stephen B Streater 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here goes the article:

COMPANIES: UK: Nothing ventured By Clay Harris Financial Times, Jun 23, 2005 [67]

Sellers of companies don't often get paid by postal order. But the accountants running failed carmaker MG Rover are now owners of one for £1, courtesy of a group calling itself the "Office of International Treasury Control".

The OITC paid the money as a deposit on its £10 bid for Rover, which it wants to restart with a "guaranteed" $5bn cash injection. The OITC, apparently based in Thailand, claims to be a secret part of the United Nations. The UN denies it exists and says there is no such thing as a "UN Charter Control Number", quoted by the organisation to prove its validity.--24.215.205.169

• Have an article but not this one. Looks like the FT looked into this a bit. I support having a short article constructed out of quotes/links of the more reputable sources, stating the issues, but not claiming any opinion itself. The more controversial the topic, the more bland and factual the article must be. Stephen B Streater 21:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete The only delete arguments after the nomination were Waffleknocker's legal threats; which should have been treated like other legal threats. Deleting this is not a good way to get it rewritten. Tony, please do send me the deleted text (my e-mail is enabled) and I will see what I can do. Septentrionalis 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with no prejudice against creation of a better article on a similar topic.-Polotet 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to bring to people's attention two related articles, Consolidated Credit Bank Limited and Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). I've nominated these for deletion here and here – I believe Wikipedia is being used for astroturfing. In addition, the same user (Waffleknocka (talk · contribs) responsible for those articles created a POV fork of the OITC article at The Office of International Treasury Control, which I've speedily deleted. -- ChrisO 12:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now created Office of International Treasury Control as a (hopefully) NPOV version of the deleted article, following the discussion above. Comments are welcome (to Talk:Office of International Treasury Control, please). Vandalism of the new article by either side will not be tolerated and will result in accounts being blocked if required. -- ChrisO 16:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

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 --Col. Hauler 11:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn per my rationale above. --Col. Hauler (talk) 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)
• Keep Deleted per Zis guy and the fact that we aren't a crystal ball for unannounced and unverifiable game sequels. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per JzG.  RasputinAXP  c 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per JzG. Xoloz 00:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's very verifiable, look at the link. That's what the article looked like, it was perfectly sourced - it was only deleted because the old version of the article was terrible and got deleted before (a short stub citing nothing more than a YTMD page) - it's a good, encyclopedic, article now.
  JzG, this game has been announced, read the link, there's plenty of sourced quotes from the company that the game will be produced, just a release date has not been set. That's normal, lots of games have Wikipedia articles before their release date has been set (StarCraft: Ghost, Doom III, anyone? Exactly the same situation). There's no reason to delete this article whatsoever, I've refuted every claim that could be used for deletion and no one has been able to come up with a single good reason. It's very notable, it's very encylcopedic, it's completely verifiable and sourced. --Col. Hauler 11:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted I have read the link Col. Hauler gave above, and there is no offical announcement, bar a non-committal "we do fully intend to revisit the world", and a verbal promise four years ago, neither of which are concrete enough to base an article on. Regards, MartinRe 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now, I'm afraid. (This is coming from someone who'd *kill* to have StarCraft II in his hands. =]) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. An announcement by a company isn't probative here, especially one as vague as the one linked above--all kinds of things are announced (see Vaporware) that never occur. Game companies are particularly notorious in this regard (see Duke Nukem Forever). · rodii · 12:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The fact that we've not yet deleted other articles which violate the "crystal ball" rule is no excuse to repeat the mistake here. Rossami (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet if Duke Nukem Forever has an article, so there should be one for StarCraft II. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." - All the stuff that was in the article (in it's state just prior to deletion) was verifiable, and certainly there's a wide enough interest to merit an article (just try googling "StarCraft 2"). --Col. Hauler 12:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're comparing apples and oranges. The Duke Nukem Forever article is primarily about its vaporware status. It's notable mainly for that, whereas Starcraft II isn't. There's no reason the verifiable material here couldn't be merged with Starcraft. · rodii · 15:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only fact in that article is that Blizzard intends to revisit the StarCraft universe. That's certainly nowhere near a confirmation that StarCraft II exists. The rest is just fan speculation. It's the same reason why Mario Party DS has been deleted multiple times and is now protected from recreation. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JzG and TheKoG. Barno 14:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, reluctantly. The deletion was out of process; the new article is significantly different than what was voted on previously. WP:SNOW might apply, but I think another AfD is not unreasonable. (A few notes: Duke Nukem Forever has an article because there are people whose job is to develop that specific game (or, at the very least, there have been in the past), and its prolonged development cycle is itself notable. Neither applies to SC2. Any relevant information on SC2 can easily be placed in the StarCraft article. None of this affects my decision on the issue at hand, though, which is whether the article was properly deleted. It was not.) Powers 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per LtPowers. Mangojuice^talk 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per Powers. Significantly different from article which went through AfD. JoshuaZ 05:13, 7 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)

How do we source any information? Hyacinth 20:15, 5 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)
• Endorse closure. While it's conceivable that a couple AfD voters were confused about the meaning of the term, the vote was, y'know, unanimous. LotLE×talk 15:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-create with only verifiable examples of people with perfect pitch (Mozart, Slonimsky, Julie Andrews, ...), and only allowing sourced items to be added to the list. It's an encyclopedic topic, and references to whether or not a famous musician had or did not have perfect pitch are relatively easy to come by. I don't see the point in undeleting the article since none of the names have references, and for this kind of list, references are desperately needed. (You cannot add references to a category, which is why this kind of information needs to be maintained as a list.) Antandrus (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You can, however, add references to an article to support addition to a category, and the editor community on that article will be likely to reject addition of a category which is not supported by evidence - whereas they may well not even notice addition to a list, cited or not. Just zis Guy you know? 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not my experience. Unsupported additions to cats are quite common; lists can be watched, categories can't (and a lot of editors haven't read WP:Categories and don't understand the support requirements. Septentrionalis 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • But you don't need to watch the category itself. We just need to trust that the people watching the article on, for example, Thomas Edison will see the category tag added to their article and will recognize it for vandalism and revert it. If all the articles that feed a category are kept clean, then the category page itself will be automatically kept clean. It's a decentralized approach to control. Rossami (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • "Trust but verify" - and it is significantly more difficult to check a cat and verify that the additions to it are not spam than to watch a list article. Septentrionalis 17:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The consensus was pretty clear. Many people have absolute pitch - I know around half a dozen (all amateur musicians). The list here would not grow too long as not all these are notable. The problem I think is that the coverage will be very patchy. Some vandal adds Bill Clinton to the list - well people may be able to check this I suppose. But then they add David Mellor. Who will be confident enough to revert it? The list will be suspect, and so not very useful. The category idea is also risky, but less prone to errors as editors will follow their favourite characters much more closely than a generic person said to have absolute pitch. Stephen B Streater 20:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I must endorse closure although I would have voted against it. AfD must have the power to make mistakes. Partial exemption from G4: any recreation is going to resemble some form of this article for a while. Septentrionalis 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crook

first nomination

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)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The discounting of votes was within reasonable admin discretion. Poor wording of a nomination is not sufficient grounds to overturn the community consensus. Rossami (talk) 20:17, 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,

- 6 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.)

Comment To be absolutely accurate, I did not vote for deletion. I offered a comment that the article itself was a "stub that doesn't seem to assert much (if any) notability." Although the article has been expanded slightly (very slightly), I still believe this is basically the case, and wish that somebody had devoted to the article half the effort they devoted to the AfD. Fan1967 14:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

- 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)

Never mind, ignore this section. Its point was lost on everyone. Its emphasis was meant to be on the discussion, not my summary of the voting. — GT 14:47, 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)

I decline to take part in a p*ssing contest -- you used my name in your argument: I sought my right of reply. That you disagree with my point of view, I accept: that you appear to find it offensive that I hold a point of view, I find offensive. Were it within my power, I would seek sanctions against you for bad faith -- it isn't, I cannot (apparently I have not made "enough" edits to Wiki to be counted as a "good" contributor -- which someone will doubtless say justifies your stance). I continue to offer no vote, given the circumstances. -- Simon Cursitor 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that we have made identical numbers of edits, I am not offended by your views. I was just curious as to whether you understood the deletion policy as it relates to stubs and if so how you reconciled your understanding of it with your recommendations here. As far as "bad faith" goes, feel free to make your case against me here or elsewhere. That is a pretty heavy allegation and if you can't already tell, I'm not very keen on making claims and then not supporting them. — GT 04:25, 6 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)
  • Thanks for the suggestion, I added the tag. So is she prominent by virtue of the fact that her unsourced WP article says so or what? — GT 13:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • See the bit where I said she looks as if she's a prominent bioconservative? That looks as if is the bit which needs to be established by sources, currently absent from the article. If it's not been sources or more categorically established after a month or so I will cheerfully vote delete. Drop me a note on my Talk page if I happen to miss the repeat nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 15:41, 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)
• 'Keep deleted. French.' --Col. Hauler 19:06, 5 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)
    • Promoting the deletion policy is great. However, let's be a bit more honest here, eh? You disregarded the deletion policy in this case more than you promoted it. The answer you got is not unreasonable, now that other sources have been produced after the fact. I would rather see people put their argument IN the Afd and let it run longer to see if folks agree or disagree. I'm a product-over-process guy every time, but this could have gone more smoothly. Friday (talk) 14:05, 5 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)
• Comment: While the outcome is satisfactory one wonders if there wasn't a less disruptive way to achieve the same result, for example voting on AfD (the horror!) as the plebs must do , saying "[source] and [source] tell us that amongst librarians Dualabs is a byword for data obsolescence" and trusting the admin who closes the debate is swayed by the force of the argument and concludes that the article is worthy enough to keep. It appears that the action taken was to prove the point that the deletion policy is broken and I fully expect this debate to be recycled next time the subject comes up. Dr Zak 14:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the deletion policy seems to be working fine. Hence my close. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The deletion policy is fine. As usual the debate is about its implementation. Dr Zak 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps this should be relisted. It is highly possible that upon reviewing the debate as it existed, people simply didn't bother adding to it since the deicions seemed to be foregone. Eusebeus 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This wasn't controversial; it's just that nobody cared or even much thought about it until Tony took a look. There was no good reason to delete this article, and plenty of reasons not to. He could have voted, and brought this silliness to others' attention, and the debate would have become a keep—but that would have been more time for the same result. There's also no reason to use this non-incident as an excuse to debate Tony's approach to deletion. -- SCZenz 23:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Err, deletion review is most definitely the right place to review a deletion, is it not? This includes the merits of the article (which, to me, now, is a keeper) and the merits of the Afd closure, which to me, in this case, wasnt't handled all that well. Friday (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist I am not persuaded by Tony's argument; and he should have made it as an argument, and kept open, to see who agreed with it. Septentrionalis 04:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, let's get some more eyeballs on it. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:01, 5 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

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."[[71]]
  • 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 [[72]] to get the song included in the Snakes on a Plane soundtrack.[[73]] 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)

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" - [74] - 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 - [75] - 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. [76]

  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 [77] (BBC) and have been confirmed as main support band for the Monkeys' upcoming tour [78] (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)
• Redirect per the above. Cynical 10:56, 7 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 - No consensus (with sockpuppets included).
• Third - Speedy Delete (due to contamination of the 2nd AFD by sockpuppets).

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)

Comment Lest anyone should infer from Double's recitation of my AfD comment that I concur with his/her assessment, I should note that I raised the same objections Calton raises here; I have elsewhere undertaken to explain why our ascription of apocryphal to the claims apropos of "Free the Children" wouldn't be original research (or otherwise a contravention of WP:V), but I won't recapitulate that argument here, if only because it's only tangentially related to the instant DRV. Joe 23:40, 4 May 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)

• It's a header, as should have been obvious to anyone with minimal reading skills. Inserting your comment only served to obfuscate that -- which I'm guessing was your intent. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• comment: This user's first edit was 29 April 2006, 5-days after this deletion review started. Thryduulf 23:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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 [79]. 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)

• You need to come up with less transparently bogus misreadings. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 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)

You can't even spell it correctly And you can't sockpuppet believably. My typing skills versus your transparent sockpuppetry -- which is a better sign of credibility? --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 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)

• You just call everybody a sockpuppet, don't you? No, I called the actual declared, confirmed sockpuppets, sockpuppets. I even used a number -- 2 -- that anyone can read. It's generally accepted that when making falsehoods, it's best not to do so immediately by things which demonstrably contracdict them -- you should learn that lesson. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 6 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) [80]. 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)

• I'm merely pointing out that repeatedly doing the same transparently obvious sockpuppetry isn't convincing the 12th or 20th time you do it -- and when I say "you", I don't mean the general you, I mean you, specifically. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 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) User's 15th-17th edit. G'wan, tell me you were surprised. --Calton | Talk 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Comment restored Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User:GoinHome has now been blocked, for reasons please see [81]. -- Curps 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And now he has created sockpuppets Goinhome, Goinhome1, Goinhome2, Goinhome3, Goinhome4 for the purpose of disrupting and vandalizing this Deletion review discussion just like he did for the AfDs. Accordinly, this page has been sprotected. -- Curps 06:36, 6 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)

• comment: This user's first edit was 29 April 2006, 5-days after this deletion review started. Thryduulf 23:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Comment restored. Moved by GoinHome underneath another editor's comments. Naughty naughty. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has now been blocked, for reasons please see [82]. -- Curps 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete this - it is a verifiable article about a candidate in an election. For great justice. 01:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and merge and carpet bomb Vaughan. That should solve the problem. Ground Zero | t 17:05, 7 May 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) [83] 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)

"African philosophy (in all its no-content, no-history glory"? Note -- again -- that the structure of the article was gutted by those who complained about cool being traced back to Africa (but could offer no scholarly rebuttal, just carping), and the criticized and brought up for deletion because people claimed they didn't understand what it was about. deeceevoice 09:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I fear you mistake my meaning, Deeceevoice. Please inspect each version here. You'll find that the content you're talking about, gutted or otherwise, every version of it, is actually here. You're talking about a different article than the one named in the header of this discussion. "Cool (African philosophy)", on the Wiki, is a location. It's the location where you made those edits. Now it's an empty location, and your edits are, counterintuitively enough, in the "history" of Cool (African aesthetic). -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:04, 7 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 [84] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[85] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [86] 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. [87] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [88] 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 [89]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [90] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [91] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [92] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [93] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [94] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [95] 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 [96] 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. [97] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [98] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[99] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[100] 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. [101] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [102] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [103] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [104] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [105] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [106] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [107] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [108] 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. [109] 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. [110] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [111] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [112] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [113], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [114] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [115] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [116] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [117] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [118] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [119] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [120] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [121] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [122] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [123] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [124] 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 [125]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. [126] 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