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.

• Can someone please temporarily undelete Badger Badger Badger Parodies as I intend to place it on adhocipedia (see my userpage). CMIIW 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are you? Please sign your post with ~~~~. Rossami (talk)
• I will be very grateful if a kind administrator posted the contents of the deleted userboxes Drug-free, atheist, evolution2, evol-N and antiuserboxdeletion at a subpage of my userbox for userification. By moving them to the userspace, T1/T2 won't apply. Thanks. Loom91 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No one will help me? Loom91 08:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll help you userfy them. Metamagician3000 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• Hazelwood Central High School - This was actually kept in AFD, but deleted for being empty. I made a redirect. For the moment, I wish the history to be undeleted. Then I can review it, and decide if it should be a stand-alone article, or remain a redirect. Please note, some older versions have a copyvio, so be sure to restore an appropriate version. It might be, that without the copyvio, there's not enough for an article, which I'll know when I see it. --Rob 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... that was one of the few school articles I have voted to delete, and I am almost inclined to call the speedy deletion as a valid application of A3. Nonetheless, a history only undeletion isn't harmful so I have done so. Please make some real expansions to the article before "articleizing" this redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on my recollection, the entire article was pretty much a cut and paste from the school district web site, so I don't think you'll find anything to salvage. Fan1967 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Religion of Peace - I'd like to see, whether the issues of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religion_of_Peace have been addressed. Raphael1 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

26 May 2006

Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en

Previous DRVU

To quote the undeletion policy,

After ten days, if a majority of voters were in favor of undeletion, it should be undeleted; else it should be removed from the page and remain deleted.

Closing this as "silly" is a clear violation of that. --Rory096 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I saw it and was involved in that debate. I was going to trying to look for someone uninvolved in the debate to take care of it... anyway, can someone uninvolved do the correct thing here and Speedily Undelete these things and send them to tfd or whatever if they haven't been there before? RN 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's just Tony being himself. I'll send them the proper way. Xoloz 17:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • He actually did this earlier here. --Rory096 17:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd forgotten about that earlier close. I do think it's about time these silly things were quietly put out of their misery. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I had noticed, and hadn't minded myself, but since someone did, they're all off to TfD for a definite consensus now. What a beautiful way to ignore my paying job! :)Xoloz 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism

• UnDelete. There was no concensous to delete this article. Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism). For the content of article to be merged with Political terrorism it will need to be undeleted. Also there may have been some vote gathering see [1], [2], [3] and [4]. --JK the unwise 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close and Keep Deleted. If my counting isn't totally screwed up, I count 15 deletes, 5 merges, 2 keeps, and 1 keep or merge. I don't see any logic that can justify "Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted." Also, quite frankly, all the NPOV content is already at Political terrorism. - Fan1967 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question: The consensus to delete was clear and I can not disagree with some of the core concerns raised during the AFD discussion. However, I note that this article's earliest version pre-dates the Political terrorism article. Was content merged before or during the discussion? If so, we would seem to be obligated to either restore and redirect or to execute a history-only merger in order to preserve the attribution history - a requirement of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Stella Maris College Scout Group

• UnDelete - this article was still a stub. However, it was deleted. Wikipedia does not have information about scout groups in Malta. The page The_Scout_Association_of_Malta is the only Maltese scouting page. Wikipedia needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc. The Stella Maris College Scout Group is an active group, which deserves to be listed. It has carried out a number of joint activities with different scout groups around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk • contribs)
• The entire content of the article was

  "Stella Maris College Scout Group is part of The Scout Association of Malta"

  and an externel link. - I'd just recreate it with something more substantail. RN 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, discourage recreation. Individual Scout groups are not notable. "Wikipedia needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc" - no, the organisation's website needs that, this is an encyclopaedia and not a vehicle for promoting Scout groups. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

25 May 2006

List of Michael Savage neologisms

The AfD discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Michael Savage neologisms (second nomination).

• UnDelete - list :[5]offers insight into controversial cultural icon, unique extensive jargon reference

Its never been deleted... RN 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It has, he just linked to the wrong article in the heading. I've fixed it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. AfD was closed quite properly, and a look at the article shows nothing that would be missed from Wikipedia. If you'd like to take the content and host it on your own website, I'd be happy to provide it to you. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• endorse closure - keep deleted. This was a valid afd with a 100% consensus that there shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia (there were votes to transwiki to Wikiquote, 10 votes to delete and one unsigned comment by an anon that didn't express an opinion about the article). Thryduulf 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but not the actual AfD result. Valid AfD here, but I wouldn't have put "no consensus, leaning towards delete" as the result in the AfD. After discounting the invalid votes, this was definitely a consensus towards delete. A "no consensus" means that the article is kept, not deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC), valid AfD (changed my comments now that RasputinAXP provided a link to the most recent AfD). --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• AfD isn't a vote ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, as an AfD closer, I'm aware of that. As I've noted somewhere else, while AfD isn't a vote, and each entry in an AfD is a comment, I choose to name any comment which calls for an action (such as comments that start with Keep, Merge, Redirect, or Delete) a "Vote" for convenience and to differentiate it from an actual comment which doesn't call for an action (such as comments that have no heading, or start with Comment). If you would prefer that I use a different noun, I can call it an iVote, nVote, !Vote, notVote, or something like that. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted: List of neologisms from a single person? That's a tribute page, a fan page, or an attack page, and it's not an encyclopedia article. Geogre 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: as the closer of the most recent AfD on this article, it was a pretty clear Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I changed my comments to reflect that. I had to look for the AfD manually, but didn't think to look for the second nom. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted The closure and deletion was proper, and valid reasons for deletion were expressed in the first and second AfDs and here above, while no reasons expressed for keeping it had any weight to them. (Even if the article were deemed to be proper for WP, it had many problems I had identified in the 1st AfD the maintainers of the page were apparently unwilling to address.) Шизомби 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• transwiki to Wikiquote list qualifies as a unique citation of quotes
• Comment First Deletion Request Discussion Page has further objections as to encyclopedic relevance and other objections--Lr99 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (as delete) The AfD was altogether proper, and there was a clear consensus for delete (for our purposes, transwiki can be understood as supporting delete [since those supporting transwikification acknowledge that the information is not appropriate for Wikipedia]). Nothing is adduced here toward the proposition that new evidence exists such that those supporting delete would think the article ought to be kept, and, inasmuch as the general AfD objections (mine, at least, in which others joined) were as to the page's being an indiscriminate collection of information and in any event largely unverifiable, no such evidence could be introduced. I can't think of any valid challenge one could essay to the AfD or to this article's deletion. If one wants to transwiki (I'm not certain that Wikiquote would want the page, but I'm not wholly familiar with their inclusion guidelines), I think the text of original should surely be copied to a user subpage, with the proviso that the text shouldn't stay there forever; we'd then simply be hosting a deleted article in userspace. Joe 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer

Discussion closed, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer.

Superhorse

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhorse

I would respectfully request that another look be taken at this article. I have added more supporting evidence since the AFD started and I am not sure whether or not it was taken into consideration. This is my first article and I think that a little construtive criticism wouldn't hurt and would help me right write articles in the future.

Quite frankly my first experience was a bit nerve wrecking and I feel that I have learned little and am unsure if I am capable of at least starting an article that would be acceptable to Wikipedia' standards. Thanks for all your help and I look forward to a fair and ubiased discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanax (talk • contribs)

• Comment FWIW, the deleted article can be viewed at a Google cache. Fan1967 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As the closing admin, I'd like to say that I would have liked to be informed about this DRV (please take a look at {{DRVNote}}). Now, to the AfD itself. First of all, it wasn't easy, sifting through the extremely long comments by all the new users (likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets). Next, after discounting those invalid votes, on a strict vote count, I counted four deletes and one keep, with the one keep being by the original author. The delete votes took into account the evidence you were presenting, and they still decided that the subject wasn't notable enough to be included. If this article is kept deleted, it's okay, it's not easy sometimes figuring out what's notable and what's not. It might be easiest for you to find a small music-related articles and expand those instead. Wikipedia could use some expansion of articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Once the band has more coverage will they be reconsidered for inclusion on Wikipedia or is this a life time delete? user = meanax
  • No, it's not a lifetime delete. Bands that become notable (per Wikipedia:Notability (music), usually by being signed to a major label and/or releasing a notable album) can and do get undeleted and mentioned on Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment And one shouldn't be discouraged when the subject of an article he/she wrote is deemed non-notable, even if he/she is closely linked with the subject. After all, were Wikipedia around in 1958, we'd like have adjudged as non-notable (in view of our not being a crystal ball) The Quarrymen, but we'd surely have included them upon their becoming The Beatles and having some commerical success. Joe 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Dear Deathphoenix, I just want to clarify that all the long comment on that AFD were mine. Two of the keep voters I new. I third one I had no idea who or she was. I want to make clear that I was not trying to circumvent the system. I promise. user = meanax
  • No problem. I closed the AfD without malice and in as fair a way as possible. Oh, and note my additions to the response above. --Deathphoenix ʕ
• No opinion to the deleted article, but there could be a good article under this name, I think. Isn't superhorse a breeding/racing term applied to specific horses like Secretariat which perform a standard deviation or two above literally any of their peers? I will look into it more and write a draft when I have time and am on my normal computer. --W.marsh 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentIndeed; when first I saw this listing, I assumed it to be an article apropos of the equine appellative (recently ascribed to Barbaro [pre-injury]). Joe 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• I've removed the {{deletedpage}} now that the user is involved in DrV. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Legit afd (whose concerns focused on verifiability); too local (no mention in Allmusic.com, no titles for sale at Amazon). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt

Exicornt is a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use to describe a train track junction that resembles the formation of the letter X. Six months ago, I created an article on this term. However, it ended up getting deleted and renamed to crossover (rail). Several attempts have been made by other editors (not me) to include this word on the article.

I understand that some editors object to having to word mentioned on Wikipedia. However, I would like to dispel one user's statement that mentioning exicornt on the article is considered vandalism. Therefore, I am writing to request that Exicornt (which is now a Junk Page) [protected against re-creation (a more accurate term)]) be deleted and redirected to crossover (rail)

I am requesting this because I noticed a recent edit war on the crossover (rail) page itself. I fear some editors might accusing me of being a so-called "sockpuppet" as a result.

Though I am prepared to take any criticism, I feel posting the word here for review is a proper course of action to take in light of the recent controversy. Edit warring isn't the answer to solving this problem. -- Eddie, Thursday May 25 2006 at 14:01 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The AFD was completely legit, apart from Eddie's attempts to make it go away. Edit warring doesn't change the reasons why "exicornt" was deleted. No need to create a redirect that would legitimate this word that is used only by a small (perhaps very small) local group. FreplySpang 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. I don't see that anything has changed since the AfD result, which was exactly correct. Google still shows no uses of this that aren't Wikipedia or Wiktionary-related. · rodii · 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

keep deleted I am a railfan, I've been a model railroader since the early 1980s, I helped build the Wisconsin Central project layout for Model Railroader Magazine (article series published in 1997), I'm the lead editor on Portal:Trains and I'm model contest co-chairman and a Director-At-Large for the Midwest Region of the National Model Railroad Association. I hadn't heard of this term before it popped up last November; I've only heard that track configuration referred to as a crossover. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted/NO redirect. Eddie, "exicornt" isn't "a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use", it's a term you made up yourself. This explains the recent edit warring over blanking its AFD -- it's either a crude attempt to hide the background (with its rampant sockpuppetry and vigorously unverified claims) and/or do some SEO cleansing. (I recommend reading the AfD discussion. It is...enlightening.

And by the way, the only reason I stumbled over the recent AfD edit warring was following the shenanigans of some sockpuppetry over the AFD of a made-up New Jersey baseball team, and those sockpuppets seemed interested in the old AFD. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Obviously. But let me note that unless if anyone has good evidence the the contrary, it may be reasonable to imagine that the recent rash of vandalism is by an impersonator, not Eddie himself. I certainly don't have a way to tell. However, the fact that Eddie still doesn't "get it" about "Exicornt" and has used this opportunity to open this silly DRV doesn't seem very reassuring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't find it reasonable, given his history of rampant sockpuppetry and unceasing attempts to get attention for his made-up word.

And speaking of possible sockpuppetry, I notice that a week ago that someone named Dnd293 (talk · contribs) created redirects to Crossover (rail) at Exicornts and Exicornt. -- which were the user's only edits. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. And of course there's a good chance you're right. But Eddie edited in seeming good faith for a good number of months after he ceased the suckpuppetry and exicornting, so maybe I'm AGFing a little hard here in a spirit of optimism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I remember the MfD for Eddie's userpage version of exicornt, where his submitted "source" was a hand-drawn, sloppy diagram of same. I don't see any new sources that would lead to a reevalution here. Xoloz 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per everyone above. 'Nuff said. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no compelling reason to overturn previous AFD, nor any new evidence to invalidate it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This has a been an interwiki problem for six months. —Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lock-icon.jpg

Speedy deletion in violation of the quoted WP:CSD "I1" (redundant): A JPEG is clearly not in the same format as an SVG, not only my browser knows this (unfortunately). The icon was in use for several weeks on almost all template talk pages using {{Protection templates}} after somebody proposed it on one of these pages as general "protected" icon. I tested it because visible is better than broken from my POV on Protection templates for about a month - there were no objections. Therefore I added it to the (few) unprotected protection templates (excl. the semi-protection templates, where a lock icon makes no much sense) today. The edit history clearly stated "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Images cannot be restored. Please re-upload it and continue to discuss the issue of what image should be used.--Sean Black 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do you have a copy of the image? It's not possible to undelete images, so unless you have a copy somewhere that you can upload if the DRV passes, it won't really help to list it here... Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I only saw it on Template talk:Vprotected - most Wikipedia icons don't work with my browser, it's too old for inline PNG. Therefore I won'tb miss the few exceptions like wikipedia_minilogo.gif or this JPG. I can transform PNG to say GIF and upload that. If the result is smaller (in bytes) without untolerable losses, otherwise that would be a stupid strategy. -- Omniplex 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What are you using, Mosaic? Even Netscape 4.5 could handle inline PNG images. --Carnildo 09:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Reupload This truely puzzles me. I assume no bad faith on Borg Hunter's part, but I really don't have a clue how this happened =) Someone enlighten me =P --mboverload@ 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, it can't be undeleted, as admins don't have the technical ability to undelete images. Perhaps it might be cached by Google, but I doubt it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you understand? It is the same thing as Image:Padlock.svg. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Google's cache is here. Hurry, it'll be gone soon. --Rory096 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• I re-uploaded a new copy. Thankfully, I had it saved! --Sunfazer |Talk 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete What is the big deal? Citing CSD#1 was technicaly wrong, but {{redundant}} and {{BadJPEG}} images are deleted all the time when they are no longer used and replaced by a better version. Wikipedia policy is to replace lineart like this with SVG or PNG versions whenever possible. To quote the Format section of Wikipedia:Image use policy "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format.". Getting rid of this is entierly within policy. I urge everyone with old browsers that doesn't handle PNG's at all to upgrade or switch browser ASAP. --Sherool (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a minor addition, I do agree that this one should have been sent to IFD since it's "replacement" was not the same image in a different format and all that, that would have avoided some confution. However it would most scertainly have ended up getting deleted anyway wich is why I don't think it's a huge deal. By the way unless someone gets around to actualy adding some source info to this image it will get deleted again in 7 days regardles of the outcome of this debate. --Sherool (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and re-delete per above. Ral315 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete per Sherool. Dr Zak 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24 May 2006

Why you deleted the 16 May article about Major Power undeletion?

You people at wikipedia seem to have a probelm with all the things I write. You keep delting them. I think I was opening a big and fair debate about the Major Power article undeletion, but then you deleted what I wrote as you have deleted the article Major Power. I would like to know if I will do changes in the articles(for better, of course) or undeleting some articles I think were fine, what you will do.You people don't want valuable contributes, you want the articles to say only whatyou and some users think it's true. That is not the way, because sooner or latter, you will lost credibility.

ACamposPinho 24 May 2006

• The earlier debate was not "deleted", just closed. The decision was to endorse the redirect/status quo. Your nomination for reconsideration failed. See the Recently Closed section at the bottom of this page. Xoloz 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

23 May 2006

College Confidential

VfD, delete log

Its VfD was in August of 2005 and is no longer really relevant, as its 4500 Alexa ranking shows. Also, it clearly falls under the exception to G4 "ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject," which this was. I suggest listing on AfD. --Rory096 07:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and list on AfD. A 9-month-old VfD with only five participants ought to be reinforced, especially if new evidence for notability is claimed. Also note Rory's cite of the G4 exception, which is often ignored (or missed). Also note that repeated recreations can be considered evidence of notability (can't find the cite for that in WP's guidelines, though). Powers 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse continued deletion unless new evidence of notability is presented. Per WP:WEB, Alexa rank is not evidence of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Gnews also has some hits, but they're all borderline trivial mentions. --Rory096 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse but open to new AfD listing. I know of this site; I've used it before and found it very helpful. However, the content does not inspire much confidence in the article's potential, and as the others say, Alexa rank isn't a strong notability indicator. (Although IMO it still ought to count for something.) Still, I'm open to an AfD listing because I think we'd benefit either way. Still, there's no real hurt to the encyclopaedia if this remains deleted; it's a one-sentence stub. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Ghits aren't too bad either. --Rory096 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on AfD, but I do endorse the original deletion. The person bringing this up on AfD has presented some new evidence that could merit this article's inclusion in Wikipedia. An AfD is a good way to deletermin if it's more notable now than it was last August. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Naismith Family

This article was deleted through WP:PROD, but substantial objections were raised at Talk:Naismith Family. This is not an aspersion on the deleting admin, who probably didn't notice the talk page (the prod tag was never removed), but the prod was contested and I think it should be reviewed. My own vote would be to list it at AfD, or possibly just to merge it into James Naismith. Chick Bowen 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Restored as contested proposed deletion. Nothing more to see here, move along. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That said, I'm going to list it on WP:AFD for a full discussion, as it still looks like an unsourced neologism. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim Dingle

AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Dingle

The deletion vote for this article appears to have been initially judged based on the belief that is was a smear campaign. Later in the vote the story was confirmed to have appeared in the news, but the delete argument was then based on lack of notability under WP:BIO. However, WP:BIO specifically includes people who have become known through their involvement in a notorious event. As the subject was clearly in the news for notorious acts, it seems that it would fall into this category and thereby satisfy WP:BIO. Reconsider. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I'm unclear on why this is being brought up again now. Some people at the time set up a website TimDingle.com, which has been kept updated, if you want a summary of the story. At the time, the story was: headmaster accused in drug case. Now the story is: headmaster accused in drug case, charges later dropped. From what I can tell from googling (could be incomplete) it seems this was a local scandal, which certainly was not a big national news story, and I don't see that it's a big enough story to meet notability standards. Fan1967 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note Interesting that TimDingle.com seems to feel the need to include Wikipedia in their coverage. There is a page [6] that seems to have the story as it was before deletion (based on my vague recollection of it), as well as a link to the school's article, Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, which has a lengthy section on the incident. Fan1967 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I can remember the news story, but after the initial five minutes of infamy it only received mention in a local context (I live in Buckinghamshire). This guy is still just a headteacher who got the chop, and there are plenty of those around. -- Francs2000 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted There's a pretty clear precedent that school headmasters/principals aren't notable enough for articles themselves, and a bit of scandal in the local press isn't enough to change that. There's already a full paragraph about it in Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. I wouldn't object to redirecting Tim Dingle there, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the later votes considered the news, and they were still all in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstract People

Why, why, why is the Abstract People article being deleted? Abstract People were one of the biggest metal acts in Ireland in the 90's!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .

• Because they don't exist, thats why. Quite simple really - fictional bands don't get entries on the Wikipedia. --Kiand 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But they can always have a fictional entry! Just close your eyes, and wish upon a star... and you can read their entry, deep inside your heart! :) --Ashenai 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're hilarious....NOT. Ya stupid FOOLS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .
• I went ahead and speedied the article as a G4 and the bogus AfD page as useless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Bad faith DRV. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Totally agree with redeleting as G4, bad-faith nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The page is now protected against recreation, and I've blocked the author after he created it a fourth time. Chick Bowen 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The original speedy-deletion was as a "hoax". As we have discussed often before, being a hoax is explicitly not a speedy-deletion criterion. As individuals, we are notoriously poor at sorting the hoaxes from the real though poorly written articles on obscure topics. The subsequent re-deletions were based on the incorrect assumption that the first speedy-deletion was appropriate.
  Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Like the participants above, I can find no evidence that this band really exists. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither will I argue to overturn it without some evidence of existence. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Rossami, I think you're right. It would have been better if I'd taken it to AfD instead of re-speedying it. There's no point restoring it now (unless evidence comes along), but I'll keep in mind to be more careful with G4s. Thanks for the reminder. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse status quo - Metamagician3000 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion(s) unless evidence of verifiable existence appears. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - obvious hoax, personal abuse from the author shows lack of good faith. Demiurge 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion We can't take chances on hoaxes or unverifiable material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Some remarks. As has been pointed out, this is an incorrect application of G4: that criterion was rewritten last year with just this sort of thing in mind, and it was hoped that it made clear that this kind of action is inappropriate. Just a gentle reminder.:-) As to the comment on the nominator, his crude remarks indicate rudeness and incivility; they do not mean that he is acting in bad faith. Do be careful when questioning the intentions of editors. —Encephalon 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As an Irish rock fan, living in Ireland, I think I'd have heard of 'one of the biggest metal bands in Ireland' - and I haven't. Bastun 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah

Congratulations! After a brief discussion (that I just noticed today), with a result 12d:4k:2m, they deleted the {{see also}} for the section Hanukkah#Interaction with other traditions. Was the article unsalvageable? Or the deletors simply ignorant? Now, I'm not sure of the state of the current article (could somebody please undelete for review), as I haven't looked at it since last Hannukah. But this isn't usually considered "Original Research" to document religious practices (editors aren't making up their own), and it affects a lot of folks in my neck of the woods where mixed-faith families are common. Yet, I doubt we really want to make the already long Hannukkah article even longer.... A nice short separate article would be best.

• Undelete and fix any problems, as many (5) of the AfD commentors requested. --William Allen Simpson 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Concerns of those voting delete seem well-thought-out and valid. The article does a poor job of covering this notable issue, and has no sources. I'd say a sourced rewrite from scratch would be best. (I have history-undeleted for review.) -- SCZenz 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As I am the admin who deleted the article, I will not "vote" here, but I will explain my decision. Firstly, and probably most importantly, there was a clear consensus to delete this article as it stood. Secondly, I felt that the delete votes were better informed by our policies than the keep votes were. I myself am Jewish, and am fully aware of the issues involved in this subject; however, I too felt that the article as it stood controvened WP:OR, therefore I saw no reason to go against the majority of votes. My deletion of the article does not mean that the subject is either non-encyclopaedic or unwelcome, but that the article as it stood was in contravention of our policies (a matter which numerous editors agreed upon). An article on this subject must be sourced in detail as the Christian view of Hanukkah is far from universal. Rje 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- thank you for making it available for review, the article is only a paragraph longer than it was last time I looked at it. IZAK (Jewish) wrote most of it, so I'll prod him. I've no idea what needs "sourcing" as most of it seems to be actual quotes from religious texts. Most of it I've heard in sermons from time to time on the Christian upbringing side, so there might be seminary material somewhere, but I'm long since lapsed and have nobody to ask. Believe me, there's nothing original to somebody raised 5 days a week North American Baptist (with Jewish relatives by marriage). --William Allen Simpson 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  I, along with those who voted to delete the article, am not suggesting that IZAK made up the conent of this article. The problem is that the views expressed in the article are not universal, they are those of certain individuals (I am unaware of any Christian denomination having a specific policy towards the religious festivals of other faiths). This being the case, the article absolutely must be sourced (this is made clear at WP:OR). Like I said earlier, I don't think anybody is disputing that some Christians observe Hanukkah; the problem is that it is such a minority, combined with the fact that there is no standard way in which they perform their observations, that it is necessary for this article to contain sources for it to conform with Wikipedia's established policies. Rje 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry that you're not familiar with a significant number of denominations here in the American Heartland. Merely millions of people is a "minority" when compared to Roman Catholicism.... Anyway, the only contribution I made at the time was to merge 2 similar articles, and that's how it ended up on my watchlist. While I had an important legal brief due last Thursday, I rarely check the watchlist more than once a week anyway. Now, I've done a simple Google, and among the 847,000 results, there are several that outrank even Wikipedia! They are eternalperspectives.com, biblestudy.org, and thetribulationforce.com, all "evangelical" or "messianic", just as the article says! Like I mentioned earlier, some seminarian probably has it printed in a book somewhere, but I'm not the person to ask. Looks like User:Bill Thayer is correct about the future viability of wikipedia.... --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• IZAK's response: Hi everyone: Right off the bat let me make it very clear that I did not write this article (it's actually a stub). This material was mostly first added in 2004 by User:Chad A. Woodburn -- please contact him, his user page says he is a Christian pastor and he seems to still be active. I have not tracked it, but you guys have now forced me to look up its history, so here goes: After User:Chad A. Woodburn put it into the Hanukkah article it developed as something of a composite from a few subsequent editors, (examples:) [7] ; [8] ; [9] (there are more). When I was editing the main article about the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, rather than deleting this information which was causing constant friction between the Jewish and non-Jewish contributors I opted to move it into a more appropriate article in existence at that time called Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah (interestingly, User:Chad A. Woodburn, the author seems to fit into that stream judging by what he writes about himself) which was then renamed in another move by User:William Allen Simpson where it got its new name of Christian views of Hanukkah. So that is why there is some confusion, also see the article's history page. Note that this issue of sources was also raised [10] by User:TheRingess. Thus I hope I have clarified the questions you have here. Take care. IZAK 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. By the way, I vote Undelete, as I had no idea about its present fate. It deserves an article of its own. IZAK 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you, IZAK, for taking the time! --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It may deserve an article on its own (that's my opinion, others may differ), but what was there was completely unreferenced. At least Hanukkah bush has ample footnotes. Cheers! Dr Zak 15:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A cautionary tale -- in the AfD, somebody thought this was a copyvio. As the history revealed by IZAK shows, the cited page is actually a copy of wikipedia from several months later than the original section! --William Allen Simpson 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Look guys, I know this is an emotive subject, I really do, but the purpose of this process is not to challenge the outcome of the AfD debate. That debate has been concluded, the purpose of this page, as is clearly stated in the introduction, is to challenge my interpretation of that outcome. Without wishing to appear rude, it is not relevent to this discussion what your oppinion of the article was, or whether you missed the debate or not. What is relevent is whether you think a) I misjudged the consensus to delete, or b) that, if there was such a consensus, that the votes were not valid. I am sorry if I appear a little hot-headed about this, but the existence of this debate suggests quite a serious error on my part. Rje 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The votes were not valid. 3 cite a copyvio that did not exist. The nominator and several others call it original research. 4 call it "funny" and a "fork". And the most offensive:

    The "Christian" view of Hanukkah is like the "Dutch" view of Mount Kilimanjaro: not something to have an article about.

    --William Allen Simpson 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Even discounting the copyvio votes, there was a consensus to delete. As I have already stated the article failed our criteria for original research. While I agree that term may not be strictly accurate here, and this may be causing some confusion, if you read to policy page you will realise that the article wa in violation - hence the votes for deletion. Rje 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Legitimate Afd with a clear consensus. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Original consensus was clear. Chick Bowen 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Cut-and-dry AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Although my vote was the first that mentioned a copyvio, it is important to also note that my main reason was that the article contained original research. Kevin 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus was obvious. Dr Zak 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The WP:NOR argument, raised by the nominator and most of the other people in favour of deletion, was never rebutted by anyone arguing that it should be kept. The person who tried to say it wasn't OR failed to point to any sources, which is odd given that he claims to be studying the subject area. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - consensus was clear and there were no special circumstances. Metamagician3000 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Claught of a bird Dairy Products

I made an article on this famous store on Manitoulin Island. Claught of a bird is indeed an actual person, and he does indeed own that store. I demand that it is un-deleted, for it has good information on one of Manitoulins most popular stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk • contribs) .

• Endorse deletion, even if there were sources it would still be non notable. --Rory096 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, there were no sources...non-notable and unverified. -- Scientizzle 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Various spellings of this article title have been made--each with the same content--and deleted. Articles were created by AppleJuicefromConcentrate and his (painfully obvious) sock puppet, Motorox. -- Scientizzle 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted If not a hoax then a desperate attempt for publciity. Not notable in the slightest. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

LIP6

LIP6 is one of the two largest computer science laboratories in France, with researchers participating at the highest levels (program committees of international conferences, editorial boards of scholarly journals) across a wide variety of computer science disciplines. It is the computer science research arm of Pierre and Marie Curie University (UPMC), the largest science, technology, and medicine university in France, and the highest ranked French university in the University of Shanghai international research ranking. As the researchers also make up the teaching faculty in Computer Science at UPMC, it is, with over 100 faculty, one of the largest Computer Science departments in the world. It is hard to understand how such an institution could not be notable. The copyvio concerns are mitigated by the fact that the contribution came from the copyright holder (the lab) itself. The lab administrators were not contacted, as they should have been following Wikipedia's deletion policy, to see if this would be a problem. The answer would have been that the copyright problem is not a problem, and the needed permissions for use of the text and images can be granted. Furthermore, it is not a commercial promotion. It is true, clearly that the style and content must be modified so that it conforms to Wikipedia's style considerations and NPOV. However, the material provided should serve as a good basis for this, and the original authors are happy to work as part of the Wikipedia community in making the necessary edits. A rewrite is called for, but we do not understand the speedy deletion decision. -- 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite The topic seems to be notable, but Wikipedia does not want articles which are merely copy-and-paste jobs from official websites, even if they aren't technically copyvios. We also prefer that articles not be written by their subjects or anyone closely connected with the subject. If anyone cares to write a real article, it would probably stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Based on the evidence available at the time, I would also have deleted this as a probable copyright violation. We have had such severe problems with unsourced and illegal content, especially violations about images, that we have unfortunately been forced to take aggressive actions. A rewrite seems appropriate but please be very careful to document the copyright provenance of any text or images copied over. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Request undeletion of rewritten article I did precisely as suggested here, writing a short article with no copyvio, following the structure and style of an established article on another computer science laboratory, and, not even eight hours later, the new article has vanished. It seems whoever did this does not care to partake in the deletion review process, as no justification for deleting the rewritten article has appeared in this thread. Nor, does it seem, has this new deletion respected the general criteria for speedy deletion, which specifically says: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical", which it clearly is not. MyPOV 6:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The deleting admin has already self-reverted the action and apologized in the edit summary. Rossami (talk)

Oz categories

CfD

There used to be several categories sorting the inamates in the Oz TV series:

• Category:Homeboys of Oz
• Category:The Aryan Brotherhood in Oz
• Category:Muslim Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Latin Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Italian Prisoners of Oz

Which were deleted recently by a few people who were against it. (Unfortunately, this deletion vote was not mentioned in any page, so no one could speak for these categories.

As you may see, there are too many articles regarding oz's prisoners, and this categorizing must take place. It should be also mentioned that these categories had some text in them portraying these gangs, and describing the main event that had happened to them during the course of the series.

I will put a link in here in the series' article talk page. Thanks! OzOz 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• endorse closure and keep deleted. I suggested to the review nominator that he perhaps write an article like Gangs of Oz (TV series) and include the information that he wants to have in the categories there, but it looks like he has rejected that idea. Categories should not have significant text in them, just guidelines for what should be included in that category. He could then have little headers for Fooians of Oz, describe the gang, and link to whatever related articles were needed either in a text or list form. Original multiple category discussion was here and previous Irish prisoners deletion discussion was here, and I was the closing admin in both cases. Syrthiss 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Was a very usefull categorizing IMO. I don't care about the text, though. As far as I'm concerned, it can be sent to a different article. Jimbryho 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Randy MacFarFarAway 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Proper notice was given on the categories themselves, and the vote was unanimous to merge. No valid reason has been given for overturning the CFD. The text that OzOz mentions above is irrelevant, because anything beyond a brief description of a category's contents should be put in articles, not in categories. Postdlf 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, CfD got it right. This was an unnecessary categorization. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is kind of irrelevant, but why were there redirects to those categories in articlespace? --Rory096 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the admin arrived at the only conclusion available from the discussion, the categories were correctly tagged: process was followed correctly. Moreover the Category:Oz (TV series) characters does not seem to require subcategories at this time. Tim! 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I voted to keep them (with some renaming), but nearly everybody else felt otherwise, so I think the admin came to the right conclusion. They can all go in the main Oz characters category.--Mike Selinker 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. There are about 60 articles there not including the CO's (Which some of you suggested to be sent to the main category along with the inmates. It needs to be sorted better. Plus, I believe that many readers might be interested only in the inmates of a certain gang (Instead of the entire category where all of the inmates shown throughout the series' run are put together. Yuval madar 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hulk 2

• Overturn. The article on Hulk 2 was previously voted for deletion because it was pretty much unverifiable. Web research on the topic at that time (June 2005) only produced actors confirming they _would not_ be involved in a Hulk sequel. On 28 April 2006, Marvel confirmed that a sequel to the 2003 film was under development.

Currently the article Hulk 2 is protected and redirects to Hulk (film). I therefore propose that the page be edited to redirect to The Incredible Hulk (film) (the apparent working title of the film) which in turn redirects to the Sequel section of the 2003 film article. When sufficient information about the new film becomes available, the sequel information can then be spun out into its own article. Journeyman 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Your suggestion would create a Double redirect, which is a Bad Thing. Ask again when you are ready to create the standalone article. Thryduulf 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, premature per Thryduulf. When the article is written, I don't even think you need DRV; you can ask any admin to unprotect Hulk 2 and then properly redirect it. Thatcher131 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think the protection is needed, so I unprotected it.  Grue  12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

22 May 2006

Xombie

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xombie

It was deleted due to not meeting WP:WEB. Xombie has been in two magazines so far Fangoria and Rue Morque]. This isn't advertising for the site, its about the flash cartoon that's being turned into a movie, how can Wikipedia not have this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the AFD discussion. Had I seen this deletion discussion, I would also have argued to delete. I can not convince myself that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include entries for every flash cartoon that comes along. Rossami (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. Af first glance, this seems to be a classic "No consensus" AfD, but only one of the delete votes was valid: one was from an anon, and the other was from a very new user. That puts it right on the border for admin's discretion, and in this case, the closing admin applied it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. So here's a situation where the article clearly did not show it met WP:WEB upon its deletion, and we now have evidence that it, in fact, does meet WP:WEB. Without seeing what was there before, I don't know what the article looked like, but given that it seems that process is being followed by coming to DRV instead of just recreating, and WP:WEB (the justification for deletion) is now met, we should undelete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Valid AfD, per Deathphoenix's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, not every flash cartoon that comes along gets made into a feature-length film released on DVD. Furthermore, this series clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. AfroDwarf 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no consensus on AfD and some claims to notability were presented.  Grue  12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Howell

In the heat of the moment of deletion, many failed to look at the facts. A notable West Virginian.

• SBA Exporter of the Year for WV 2003
• Inducted into WV's GeneratioNext, 40 WV Leaders under 40
• Award from the WV Office of Tourisms Motorsports Council for promoting the State Through Motorsports

Nationally Known Automotive Person in TV and Print

• Car and Driver Magazine 2003, circulation world wide 1 million +
• C&D Magazine SuperCar Challenge Winnner. Considered to be the best of the best tuners in the world
• Mopar Muscle top Magazine for Dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler Products
• Named a Mopar mover and shaker in 1999 by Mopar Muscle Magazine
• Internet Movie Database
• DIY Networks Tricked Out-SRT-4 Exhaust Episode
• DIY Networks Tricked Out-Computer Episode

International Credit Card Fraud Expert

• CBS Evening News
• Wall Street Journal May 1, 2003
• Japanese National Television Appearence on Credit Card Fraud
• Lectures to groups nationwide on Credit Card Fraud Oct 31st 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM - How to Prevent & Reduce Losing Money to Credit Card Fraud

--71Demon 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been deleted twice; the first time following an AfD (Admins can see the final version before this deletion at [11]), with the consensus being that the article failed WP:BIO, WP:CORP and/or WP:VAIN. Having seen the content of the deleted version I would also have voted to delete for these reasons. The second time (earlier today) it was speedy deleted as an nn-bio (CSD:A7) but it could also have been deleted under CSD:G4 (recreation of previoulsy deleted material), that version [12] contained even less information than the previously deleted version and no substantiated notability claims so this was a perfectly valid deletion. Endorse deletions but allow recreation iff notability can be established. I suggest that you start composing an article in your userspace and only move it to the main namespace when it substantially improves on the first version to avoid a further speedy deletion under G4 or A7. If notability is still not established then there should be no prejudice against a second AfD. Thryduulf 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Never should have been deleted. Meets all criteria for a good Wikipedia article. --70.17.192.78 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/Restore this never should have been deleted --63.243.30.51 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• As far as I see it the facts weren't actually presented in such clarity during the afd debate, and so I don't see that the decision to delete was wrong. I'm with Thryduulf: if notability can be established then restore. -- Francs2000 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that I must disagree with the assertion that the facts above were not considered. In fact, they were clearly documented in the deleted version of the article. I find little evidence convincing me that they were ignored or overlooked by the discussion participants. I must also disagree with 71Demon's specific assertion above that Howell is an "international credit fraud expert". Three of the four articles he/she cites as evidence demonstrate no such thing. (The fourth is in Japanese so I could not evaluate it.) Howell was interviewed as a small business owner who has been affected by international credit card fraud. He is no more "expert" than any other small business owner so afflicted.
  I endorse closure (keep deleted) but, as Thryduulf said, there is no prejudice against a new article more thoroughly documenting his achievements. If such an article is written and upheld, we can do a history-restore at that time. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. Allow re-creation if the article addresses the concerns mentioned above and in the AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• (Caveat: I was the nom on the AfD in question). Endorse closure as a valid, good-faith AfD. I have no prejudice to recreation as long as it illustrates notability. To do so, the article should focus on Howell's work in the world of hot rods and automobiles (where he may possibly be notable in a relative sense) and it should prove said notability in that field. His status as a guy that has been interviewed because his business was ripped off (at least until his book is published) and his goal of seeking a seat on a local county commission should only be mentioned as side-notes and do not contribute either way to his notability or lack there of. youngamerican (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New Sincerity

This article needed expanding, not deleting. It is a verifiable media theory, although the article itself needed work. The opinion when discussed was mixed, but this is a real and serious theory that should have a place on Wikipedia. If the article is not reinstated, can I at least have the original content to be worked into a fuller, referenced article that can be? --Hippo Shaped 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Sincerity for the deletion debate.

• Endorse deletion but allow userfication. This was a valid closure of the AfD, but based on the comments by some participants it seems as though there is potential for a valid, verifiable article and indeed some work was done to improve the article during the debate, but this was not enough to influence a turnaround in voting. I recommoned that Hippo Shaped be allowed the content to work on it. I feel that it do the article good not to be associated with some of its mid-life incarnations as these were detrimental to people's opinions of it at AfD. Thryduulf 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I voted keep on the AfD discussion, but it was closed properly, if you can come up with a valid, verifiable article, then please recreate it in your User space and bring it back here for review. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. It was relisted twice, so it was a bit of a difficult one (though when I relisted it the second time, I didn't realise it was already relisted), but I think it was closed appropriately. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Successful Praying

I request the return of the article on the book Successful Praying because it was deleted without due respect for the deletion process. I would ask that this request be based on whether or not due process was followed (which I think is strong) and not on whether the article may or may not survive a more considered delete process (which I admit is less strong). See also the discussion with the admin about this deletion. Thanks, Brusselsshrek 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Technical undelete as it clearly wasn't a speedy candidate, however I recommend Brussels writes an article on the author Frederick Julius Huegel instead of or at least before writing an article on his book. Articles on authors can frequently contain most of the useful information about their writing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I have little doubt this was done in good faith, a table of contents of a book is copyrighted. After stripping the TOC and the copyrighted cover images (they can only be used in articles that discuss the book -- not ones that say Title is a book by so and so), all you have left is "Successful Praying, subtitled an explanation of ten rules which guarantee answered prayer is the title of a book by Frederick Julius Huegel." with an ISBN and a link. I don't think that result was an article. I would agree that an article about the author is probably more feasible, but if Brussel can mention something about the book other than the basic details (especially what makes the book special enough for an entry), I have little problems with a recreation. But I don't think the original should be reinstated. Userfy if he wants to expand. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I had fully intended to write more information about the contents of the book, but the stub was deleted within DAYS of it being created. The TOC was there to form a skeleton for what I was about to write. To argue that the content was not sufficient to justify recreation misses many important points:
    1. the article had only been created a few days earlier (thus deleted contrary to wikipedia guidelines of allowing a stub a reasonable time to develop).
    2. the author of the article was not informed of the deletion, except as a "speedy-delete" (while he was asleep) and so had no chance to add the real value which is suggested was missing
    3. the proper procedure was not followed, and I as the person to have most suffered from this lack of procedure, am simply asking for the right to create the article which I wanted to create.

    I will add that I have now spent a huge amount of time simply fighting against this speedy-delete, and it is a real tragedy that I waste almost all of the time I spend on Wikipedia editing recently because what I see as this admins blunder, rather than contributing useful stuff.Brusselsshrek 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Unfortunately, Brusselsshrek's statement of his/her intention to expand the stub past copy-vio status does nothing to protect the project. Every page must stand alone as is at the time you hit the "save page" button. The courts have not yet sanctioned us for tolerating copyvios for short periods but that is a theory that we should not test. Take the time to write a solid, non-copyvio stub. Then post it.
  As to Brusselsshrek's claims that he/she was not informed, no notice is required nor is any such notice appropriate (though it can, in some cases, be courteous). Please read (or re-read) WP:OWN. None of us has any claim to ownership of any page here. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, per Mgm & Rossami. Sorry, Brusselsshrek, dealing with copyvios takes precedence over everything. Even if you plan to expand the article, any content that is a copyright violation is simply not acceptable (for legal reaasons) and must be removed from the article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Deathphoenix. Although I would have taken a different route (tagging the copyvio and asking the editor to userfy it until it was further along) the destination is the same. Thatcher131 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get the point about copyvio. Question though, I have done the identical thing for the article The Cross and the Switchblade, that is, I have scanned the front/back cover of the book. Is that not copyvio? What is the guideline? I know there's a lot of general stuff written here about copyvio, but what is the story on book covers? Can I or can't I copy them? The book covers for the Successful Praying article were scanned at exactly the same resolution or size as the book cover for The Cross and the Switchblade for which nobody seems to be saying anything. Thanks for clarifying. Brusselsshrek 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the guideline at WP:FAIR it seems that a scan of a book cover to accompany an article about the book is ok. However, copying the text from the jacket so as to constitute the body of the article is definitely not. I would say that at least half of The Cross and the Switchblade is an unacceptable copyright violation. You should find some other way to describe the contents of the book in your own words. Thatcher131 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Videohypertransference

Wow... I really hope I am doing this right. Sincere apologies if I am getting this protocol wrong - I am quite a newbie. I have 2 points to make about the deletion of this article, or maybe 3. 1) May I have the text copied to my userspace? If all else fails here, I would at least be interested in getting the latest version of the text for my own personal use. 2) I didn't get any warning about the deletion notice (prolly because I didn't login for a couple of weeks), so I never got a chance to say anything about the deletion vote. I think the article is a valid attempt, and I would be happy to try and source the article a bit more thoroughly. However, as I pointed out on the discussion page, there isn't much information directly available on this topic via Google. It is a very recent phenomenon, and I did my best to scientifically describe the empirical facts. This is just my opinion, but I often find people have a very strange view of what science is! 3ish) I think the article can be improved if it is fully undeleted. The phenomenon of videohypertransference is a real one, and deserves documenting. It has grown out of the rise of video (and video nasties) in the west, and the popularity of video game culture in Japan. Thanks for your consideration, --Dan|^(talk) 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved the text to User:Dmb000006/Videohypertransference. Please stick a {{delete|unwanted user subpage}} notice on it when this deletion review is closed and you're otherwise done with the text, as Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Anyway, I think the main issue is: does anyone actually refer to this as "videohypertransference"? Otherwise the article is fundamentally original thought. In the absence of specific new evidence that would theoretically have caused the very clear consensus in the AfD to be otherwise, endorse closure. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... Would it be possible to get the discussion page restored too? I made some useful comments for the would-be deleter on that page, as well as some notes regarding the stories in the media. Thank you! --Dan|^(talk) 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, which was overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

17 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)

• Overturn and rename per local usage. Manifestly improper close, ignoring WP:Consensus to start the useless thing, an Anglo-American language dispute. Septentrionalis 04:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo. "Motor manufacturers" would be manifestly misleading, as the companies in question actually produce whole cars, rather than merely exporting motors to be installed in some other country. — May. 12, '06 [22:04] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Note that the industry trade body is called the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and of course a Motor manufacturer produces more than Engines. Ian3055 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What a confusingly named organization. — May. 15, '06 [07:44] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Like the man said, local differences. Car driver = motorist. Car salesman = motor trader. Automobile is almost unusued this side of the pond, we find "car" shorter and more convenient. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• This got no attention and I have no idea what to do with it, so I've moved it to the top of the heap. And subst the subpage, because I hate them like poison. - brenneman^{L} 12:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to match local usage, no good reason to ignore the consensus that CFD came up with. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo - I would prefer "motor vehicle manufacturers" (which sometimes gets abbreviated to "motor manufacturers"), but surely this isn't worth much of a fuss over. The outcome reached was sensible enough to stand. Metamagician3000 11:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• For values of sensible which include using a term which is simply not used at all in some of the countries named... Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 18 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)

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)

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.

• Can someone please temporarily undelete Badger Badger Badger Parodies as I intend to place it on adhocipedia (see my userpage). CMIIW 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are you? Please sign your post with ~~~~. Rossami (talk)
• I will be very grateful if a kind administrator posted the contents of the deleted userboxes Drug-free, atheist, evolution2, evol-N and antiuserboxdeletion at a subpage of my userbox for userification. By moving them to the userspace, T1/T2 won't apply. Thanks. Loom91 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No one will help me? Loom91 08:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll help you userfy them. Metamagician3000 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

• Hazelwood Central High School - This was actually kept in AFD, but deleted for being empty. I made a redirect. For the moment, I wish the history to be undeleted. Then I can review it, and decide if it should be a stand-alone article, or remain a redirect. Please note, some older versions have a copyvio, so be sure to restore an appropriate version. It might be, that without the copyvio, there's not enough for an article, which I'll know when I see it. --Rob 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... that was one of the few school articles I have voted to delete, and I am almost inclined to call the speedy deletion as a valid application of A3. Nonetheless, a history only undeletion isn't harmful so I have done so. Please make some real expansions to the article before "articleizing" this redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on my recollection, the entire article was pretty much a cut and paste from the school district web site, so I don't think you'll find anything to salvage. Fan1967 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Religion of Peace - I'd like to see, whether the issues of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religion_of_Peace have been addressed. Raphael1 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

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

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

26 May 2006

Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en

Previous DRVU

To quote the undeletion policy,

After ten days, if a majority of voters were in favor of undeletion, it should be undeleted; else it should be removed from the page and remain deleted.

Closing this as "silly" is a clear violation of that. --Rory096 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I saw it and was involved in that debate. I was going to trying to look for someone uninvolved in the debate to take care of it... anyway, can someone uninvolved do the correct thing here and Speedily Undelete these things and send them to tfd or whatever if they haven't been there before? RN 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's just Tony being himself. I'll send them the proper way. Xoloz 17:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • He actually did this earlier here. --Rory096 17:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd forgotten about that earlier close. I do think it's about time these silly things were quietly put out of their misery. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I had noticed, and hadn't minded myself, but since someone did, they're all off to TfD for a definite consensus now. What a beautiful way to ignore my paying job! :)Xoloz 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism

• UnDelete. There was no concensous to delete this article. Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism). For the content of article to be merged with Political terrorism it will need to be undeleted. Also there may have been some vote gathering see [13], [14], [15] and [16]. --JK the unwise 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Close and Keep Deleted. If my counting isn't totally screwed up, I count 15 deletes, 5 merges, 2 keeps, and 1 keep or merge. I don't see any logic that can justify "Nearly as many editors voted for it to be merged as voted for it to be deleted." Also, quite frankly, all the NPOV content is already at Political terrorism. - Fan1967 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question: The consensus to delete was clear and I can not disagree with some of the core concerns raised during the AFD discussion. However, I note that this article's earliest version pre-dates the Political terrorism article. Was content merged before or during the discussion? If so, we would seem to be obligated to either restore and redirect or to execute a history-only merger in order to preserve the attribution history - a requirement of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Stella Maris College Scout Group

• UnDelete - this article was still a stub. However, it was deleted. Wikipedia does not have information about scout groups in Malta. The page The_Scout_Association_of_Malta is the only Maltese scouting page. Wikipedia needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc. The Stella Maris College Scout Group is an active group, which deserves to be listed. It has carried out a number of joint activities with different scout groups around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk • contribs)
• The entire content of the article was

  "Stella Maris College Scout Group is part of The Scout Association of Malta"

  and an externel link. - I'd just recreate it with something more substantail. RN 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, discourage recreation. Individual Scout groups are not notable. "Wikipedia needs to have a page about the scout groups in Malta, their activities, programme, etc" - no, the organisation's website needs that, this is an encyclopaedia and not a vehicle for promoting Scout groups. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

25 May 2006

List of Michael Savage neologisms

The AfD discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Michael Savage neologisms (second nomination).

• UnDelete - list :[17]offers insight into controversial cultural icon, unique extensive jargon reference

Its never been deleted... RN 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It has, he just linked to the wrong article in the heading. I've fixed it. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. AfD was closed quite properly, and a look at the article shows nothing that would be missed from Wikipedia. If you'd like to take the content and host it on your own website, I'd be happy to provide it to you. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• endorse closure - keep deleted. This was a valid afd with a 100% consensus that there shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia (there were votes to transwiki to Wikiquote, 10 votes to delete and one unsigned comment by an anon that didn't express an opinion about the article). Thryduulf 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but not the actual AfD result. Valid AfD here, but I wouldn't have put "no consensus, leaning towards delete" as the result in the AfD. After discounting the invalid votes, this was definitely a consensus towards delete. A "no consensus" means that the article is kept, not deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC), valid AfD (changed my comments now that RasputinAXP provided a link to the most recent AfD). --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• AfD isn't a vote ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, as an AfD closer, I'm aware of that. As I've noted somewhere else, while AfD isn't a vote, and each entry in an AfD is a comment, I choose to name any comment which calls for an action (such as comments that start with Keep, Merge, Redirect, or Delete) a "Vote" for convenience and to differentiate it from an actual comment which doesn't call for an action (such as comments that have no heading, or start with Comment). If you would prefer that I use a different noun, I can call it an iVote, nVote, !Vote, notVote, or something like that. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted: List of neologisms from a single person? That's a tribute page, a fan page, or an attack page, and it's not an encyclopedia article. Geogre 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: as the closer of the most recent AfD on this article, it was a pretty clear Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I changed my comments to reflect that. I had to look for the AfD manually, but didn't think to look for the second nom. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted The closure and deletion was proper, and valid reasons for deletion were expressed in the first and second AfDs and here above, while no reasons expressed for keeping it had any weight to them. (Even if the article were deemed to be proper for WP, it had many problems I had identified in the 1st AfD the maintainers of the page were apparently unwilling to address.) Шизомби 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• transwiki to Wikiquote list qualifies as a unique citation of quotes
• Comment First Deletion Request Discussion Page has further objections as to encyclopedic relevance and other objections--Lr99 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (as delete) The AfD was altogether proper, and there was a clear consensus for delete (for our purposes, transwiki can be understood as supporting delete [since those supporting transwikification acknowledge that the information is not appropriate for Wikipedia]). Nothing is adduced here toward the proposition that new evidence exists such that those supporting delete would think the article ought to be kept, and, inasmuch as the general AfD objections (mine, at least, in which others joined) were as to the page's being an indiscriminate collection of information and in any event largely unverifiable, no such evidence could be introduced. I can't think of any valid challenge one could essay to the AfD or to this article's deletion. If one wants to transwiki (I'm not certain that Wikiquote would want the page, but I'm not wholly familiar with their inclusion guidelines), I think the text of original should surely be copied to a user subpage, with the proviso that the text shouldn't stay there forever; we'd then simply be hosting a deleted article in userspace. Joe 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer

Discussion closed, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer.

Superhorse

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhorse

I would respectfully request that another look be taken at this article. I have added more supporting evidence since the AFD started and I am not sure whether or not it was taken into consideration. This is my first article and I think that a little construtive criticism wouldn't hurt and would help me right write articles in the future.

Quite frankly my first experience was a bit nerve wrecking and I feel that I have learned little and am unsure if I am capable of at least starting an article that would be acceptable to Wikipedia' standards. Thanks for all your help and I look forward to a fair and ubiased discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanax (talk • contribs)

• Comment FWIW, the deleted article can be viewed at a Google cache. Fan1967 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As the closing admin, I'd like to say that I would have liked to be informed about this DRV (please take a look at {{DRVNote}}). Now, to the AfD itself. First of all, it wasn't easy, sifting through the extremely long comments by all the new users (likely sockpuppets or meatpuppets). Next, after discounting those invalid votes, on a strict vote count, I counted four deletes and one keep, with the one keep being by the original author. The delete votes took into account the evidence you were presenting, and they still decided that the subject wasn't notable enough to be included. If this article is kept deleted, it's okay, it's not easy sometimes figuring out what's notable and what's not. It might be easiest for you to find a small music-related articles and expand those instead. Wikipedia could use some expansion of articles. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Once the band has more coverage will they be reconsidered for inclusion on Wikipedia or is this a life time delete? user = meanax
  • No, it's not a lifetime delete. Bands that become notable (per Wikipedia:Notability (music), usually by being signed to a major label and/or releasing a notable album) can and do get undeleted and mentioned on Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment And one shouldn't be discouraged when the subject of an article he/she wrote is deemed non-notable, even if he/she is closely linked with the subject. After all, were Wikipedia around in 1958, we'd like have adjudged as non-notable (in view of our not being a crystal ball) The Quarrymen, but we'd surely have included them upon their becoming The Beatles and having some commerical success. Joe 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Dear Deathphoenix, I just want to clarify that all the long comment on that AFD were mine. Two of the keep voters I new. I third one I had no idea who or she was. I want to make clear that I was not trying to circumvent the system. I promise. user = meanax
  • No problem. I closed the AfD without malice and in as fair a way as possible. Oh, and note my additions to the response above. --Deathphoenix ʕ
• No opinion to the deleted article, but there could be a good article under this name, I think. Isn't superhorse a breeding/racing term applied to specific horses like Secretariat which perform a standard deviation or two above literally any of their peers? I will look into it more and write a draft when I have time and am on my normal computer. --W.marsh 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentIndeed; when first I saw this listing, I assumed it to be an article apropos of the equine appellative (recently ascribed to Barbaro [pre-injury]). Joe 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• I've removed the {{deletedpage}} now that the user is involved in DrV. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Legit afd (whose concerns focused on verifiability); too local (no mention in Allmusic.com, no titles for sale at Amazon). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt

Exicornt is a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use to describe a train track junction that resembles the formation of the letter X. Six months ago, I created an article on this term. However, it ended up getting deleted and renamed to crossover (rail). Several attempts have been made by other editors (not me) to include this word on the article.

I understand that some editors object to having to word mentioned on Wikipedia. However, I would like to dispel one user's statement that mentioning exicornt on the article is considered vandalism. Therefore, I am writing to request that Exicornt (which is now a Junk Page) [protected against re-creation (a more accurate term)]) be deleted and redirected to crossover (rail)

I am requesting this because I noticed a recent edit war on the crossover (rail) page itself. I fear some editors might accusing me of being a so-called "sockpuppet" as a result.

Though I am prepared to take any criticism, I feel posting the word here for review is a proper course of action to take in light of the recent controversy. Edit warring isn't the answer to solving this problem. -- Eddie, Thursday May 25 2006 at 14:01 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. The AFD was completely legit, apart from Eddie's attempts to make it go away. Edit warring doesn't change the reasons why "exicornt" was deleted. No need to create a redirect that would legitimate this word that is used only by a small (perhaps very small) local group. FreplySpang 14:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. I don't see that anything has changed since the AfD result, which was exactly correct. Google still shows no uses of this that aren't Wikipedia or Wiktionary-related. · rodii · 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

keep deleted I am a railfan, I've been a model railroader since the early 1980s, I helped build the Wisconsin Central project layout for Model Railroader Magazine (article series published in 1997), I'm the lead editor on Portal:Trains and I'm model contest co-chairman and a Director-At-Large for the Midwest Region of the National Model Railroad Association. I hadn't heard of this term before it popped up last November; I've only heard that track configuration referred to as a crossover. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted/NO redirect. Eddie, "exicornt" isn't "a slang term (or neologism) train buffs use", it's a term you made up yourself. This explains the recent edit warring over blanking its AFD -- it's either a crude attempt to hide the background (with its rampant sockpuppetry and vigorously unverified claims) and/or do some SEO cleansing. (I recommend reading the AfD discussion. It is...enlightening.

And by the way, the only reason I stumbled over the recent AfD edit warring was following the shenanigans of some sockpuppetry over the AFD of a made-up New Jersey baseball team, and those sockpuppets seemed interested in the old AFD. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. Obviously. But let me note that unless if anyone has good evidence the the contrary, it may be reasonable to imagine that the recent rash of vandalism is by an impersonator, not Eddie himself. I certainly don't have a way to tell. However, the fact that Eddie still doesn't "get it" about "Exicornt" and has used this opportunity to open this silly DRV doesn't seem very reassuring. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't find it reasonable, given his history of rampant sockpuppetry and unceasing attempts to get attention for his made-up word.

And speaking of possible sockpuppetry, I notice that a week ago that someone named Dnd293 (talk · contribs) created redirects to Crossover (rail) at Exicornts and Exicornt. -- which were the user's only edits. You wouldn't know about that, would you, Eddie? --Calton | Talk 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. And of course there's a good chance you're right. But Eddie edited in seeming good faith for a good number of months after he ceased the suckpuppetry and exicornting, so maybe I'm AGFing a little hard here in a spirit of optimism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I remember the MfD for Eddie's userpage version of exicornt, where his submitted "source" was a hand-drawn, sloppy diagram of same. I don't see any new sources that would lead to a reevalution here. Xoloz 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per everyone above. 'Nuff said. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, no compelling reason to overturn previous AFD, nor any new evidence to invalidate it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. This has a been an interwiki problem for six months. —Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lock-icon.jpg

Speedy deletion in violation of the quoted WP:CSD "I1" (redundant): A JPEG is clearly not in the same format as an SVG, not only my browser knows this (unfortunately). The icon was in use for several weeks on almost all template talk pages using {{Protection templates}} after somebody proposed it on one of these pages as general "protected" icon. I tested it because visible is better than broken from my POV on Protection templates for about a month - there were no objections. Therefore I added it to the (few) unprotected protection templates (excl. the semi-protection templates, where a lock icon makes no much sense) today. The edit history clearly stated "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Images cannot be restored. Please re-upload it and continue to discuss the issue of what image should be used.--Sean Black 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Do you have a copy of the image? It's not possible to undelete images, so unless you have a copy somewhere that you can upload if the DRV passes, it won't really help to list it here... Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I only saw it on Template talk:Vprotected - most Wikipedia icons don't work with my browser, it's too old for inline PNG. Therefore I won'tb miss the few exceptions like wikipedia_minilogo.gif or this JPG. I can transform PNG to say GIF and upload that. If the result is smaller (in bytes) without untolerable losses, otherwise that would be a stupid strategy. -- Omniplex 07:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What are you using, Mosaic? Even Netscape 4.5 could handle inline PNG images. --Carnildo 09:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Reupload This truely puzzles me. I assume no bad faith on Borg Hunter's part, but I really don't have a clue how this happened =) Someone enlighten me =P --mboverload@ 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, it can't be undeleted, as admins don't have the technical ability to undelete images. Perhaps it might be cached by Google, but I doubt it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you understand? It is the same thing as Image:Padlock.svg. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Google's cache is here. Hurry, it'll be gone soon. --Rory096 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• I re-uploaded a new copy. Thankfully, I had it saved! --Sunfazer |Talk 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete What is the big deal? Citing CSD#1 was technicaly wrong, but {{redundant}} and {{BadJPEG}} images are deleted all the time when they are no longer used and replaced by a better version. Wikipedia policy is to replace lineart like this with SVG or PNG versions whenever possible. To quote the Format section of Wikipedia:Image use policy "Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. Images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color which are not available as SVG should be in PNG format.". Getting rid of this is entierly within policy. I urge everyone with old browsers that doesn't handle PNG's at all to upgrade or switch browser ASAP. --Sherool (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a minor addition, I do agree that this one should have been sent to IFD since it's "replacement" was not the same image in a different format and all that, that would have avoided some confution. However it would most scertainly have ended up getting deleted anyway wich is why I don't think it's a huge deal. By the way unless someone gets around to actualy adding some source info to this image it will get deleted again in 7 days regardles of the outcome of this debate. --Sherool (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and re-delete per above. Ral315 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete per Sherool. Dr Zak 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24 May 2006

Why you deleted the 16 May article about Major Power undeletion?

You people at wikipedia seem to have a probelm with all the things I write. You keep delting them. I think I was opening a big and fair debate about the Major Power article undeletion, but then you deleted what I wrote as you have deleted the article Major Power. I would like to know if I will do changes in the articles(for better, of course) or undeleting some articles I think were fine, what you will do.You people don't want valuable contributes, you want the articles to say only whatyou and some users think it's true. That is not the way, because sooner or latter, you will lost credibility.

ACamposPinho 24 May 2006

• The earlier debate was not "deleted", just closed. The decision was to endorse the redirect/status quo. Your nomination for reconsideration failed. See the Recently Closed section at the bottom of this page. Xoloz 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

23 May 2006

College Confidential

VfD, delete log

Its VfD was in August of 2005 and is no longer really relevant, as its 4500 Alexa ranking shows. Also, it clearly falls under the exception to G4 "ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject," which this was. I suggest listing on AfD. --Rory096 07:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and list on AfD. A 9-month-old VfD with only five participants ought to be reinforced, especially if new evidence for notability is claimed. Also note Rory's cite of the G4 exception, which is often ignored (or missed). Also note that repeated recreations can be considered evidence of notability (can't find the cite for that in WP's guidelines, though). Powers 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse continued deletion unless new evidence of notability is presented. Per WP:WEB, Alexa rank is not evidence of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Gnews also has some hits, but they're all borderline trivial mentions. --Rory096 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse but open to new AfD listing. I know of this site; I've used it before and found it very helpful. However, the content does not inspire much confidence in the article's potential, and as the others say, Alexa rank isn't a strong notability indicator. (Although IMO it still ought to count for something.) Still, I'm open to an AfD listing because I think we'd benefit either way. Still, there's no real hurt to the encyclopaedia if this remains deleted; it's a one-sentence stub. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Ghits aren't too bad either. --Rory096 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on AfD, but I do endorse the original deletion. The person bringing this up on AfD has presented some new evidence that could merit this article's inclusion in Wikipedia. An AfD is a good way to deletermin if it's more notable now than it was last August. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Naismith Family

This article was deleted through WP:PROD, but substantial objections were raised at Talk:Naismith Family. This is not an aspersion on the deleting admin, who probably didn't notice the talk page (the prod tag was never removed), but the prod was contested and I think it should be reviewed. My own vote would be to list it at AfD, or possibly just to merge it into James Naismith. Chick Bowen 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Restored as contested proposed deletion. Nothing more to see here, move along. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That said, I'm going to list it on WP:AFD for a full discussion, as it still looks like an unsourced neologism. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim Dingle

AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Dingle

The deletion vote for this article appears to have been initially judged based on the belief that is was a smear campaign. Later in the vote the story was confirmed to have appeared in the news, but the delete argument was then based on lack of notability under WP:BIO. However, WP:BIO specifically includes people who have become known through their involvement in a notorious event. As the subject was clearly in the news for notorious acts, it seems that it would fall into this category and thereby satisfy WP:BIO. Reconsider. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I'm unclear on why this is being brought up again now. Some people at the time set up a website TimDingle.com, which has been kept updated, if you want a summary of the story. At the time, the story was: headmaster accused in drug case. Now the story is: headmaster accused in drug case, charges later dropped. From what I can tell from googling (could be incomplete) it seems this was a local scandal, which certainly was not a big national news story, and I don't see that it's a big enough story to meet notability standards. Fan1967 00:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note Interesting that TimDingle.com seems to feel the need to include Wikipedia in their coverage. There is a page [18] that seems to have the story as it was before deletion (based on my vague recollection of it), as well as a link to the school's article, Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, which has a lengthy section on the incident. Fan1967 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I can remember the news story, but after the initial five minutes of infamy it only received mention in a local context (I live in Buckinghamshire). This guy is still just a headteacher who got the chop, and there are plenty of those around. -- Francs2000 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted There's a pretty clear precedent that school headmasters/principals aren't notable enough for articles themselves, and a bit of scandal in the local press isn't enough to change that. There's already a full paragraph about it in Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. I wouldn't object to redirecting Tim Dingle there, I guess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the later votes considered the news, and they were still all in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Abstract People

Why, why, why is the Abstract People article being deleted? Abstract People were one of the biggest metal acts in Ireland in the 90's!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .

• Because they don't exist, thats why. Quite simple really - fictional bands don't get entries on the Wikipedia. --Kiand 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But they can always have a fictional entry! Just close your eyes, and wish upon a star... and you can read their entry, deep inside your heart! :) --Ashenai 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're hilarious....NOT. Ya stupid FOOLS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbstractPeople (talk • contribs) .
• I went ahead and speedied the article as a G4 and the bogus AfD page as useless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Bad faith DRV. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Totally agree with redeleting as G4, bad-faith nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The page is now protected against recreation, and I've blocked the author after he created it a fourth time. Chick Bowen 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• The original speedy-deletion was as a "hoax". As we have discussed often before, being a hoax is explicitly not a speedy-deletion criterion. As individuals, we are notoriously poor at sorting the hoaxes from the real though poorly written articles on obscure topics. The subsequent re-deletions were based on the incorrect assumption that the first speedy-deletion was appropriate.
  Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Like the participants above, I can find no evidence that this band really exists. I can not endorse the speedy-deletion but neither will I argue to overturn it without some evidence of existence. Rossami (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Rossami, I think you're right. It would have been better if I'd taken it to AfD instead of re-speedying it. There's no point restoring it now (unless evidence comes along), but I'll keep in mind to be more careful with G4s. Thanks for the reminder. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse status quo - Metamagician3000 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion(s) unless evidence of verifiable existence appears. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - obvious hoax, personal abuse from the author shows lack of good faith. Demiurge 08:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion We can't take chances on hoaxes or unverifiable material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Some remarks. As has been pointed out, this is an incorrect application of G4: that criterion was rewritten last year with just this sort of thing in mind, and it was hoped that it made clear that this kind of action is inappropriate. Just a gentle reminder.:-) As to the comment on the nominator, his crude remarks indicate rudeness and incivility; they do not mean that he is acting in bad faith. Do be careful when questioning the intentions of editors. —Encephalon 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As an Irish rock fan, living in Ireland, I think I'd have heard of 'one of the biggest metal bands in Ireland' - and I haven't. Bastun 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Hanukkah

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of Hanukkah

Congratulations! After a brief discussion (that I just noticed today), with a result 12d:4k:2m, they deleted the {{see also}} for the section Hanukkah#Interaction with other traditions. Was the article unsalvageable? Or the deletors simply ignorant? Now, I'm not sure of the state of the current article (could somebody please undelete for review), as I haven't looked at it since last Hannukah. But this isn't usually considered "Original Research" to document religious practices (editors aren't making up their own), and it affects a lot of folks in my neck of the woods where mixed-faith families are common. Yet, I doubt we really want to make the already long Hannukkah article even longer.... A nice short separate article would be best.

• Undelete and fix any problems, as many (5) of the AfD commentors requested. --William Allen Simpson 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Concerns of those voting delete seem well-thought-out and valid. The article does a poor job of covering this notable issue, and has no sources. I'd say a sourced rewrite from scratch would be best. (I have history-undeleted for review.) -- SCZenz 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As I am the admin who deleted the article, I will not "vote" here, but I will explain my decision. Firstly, and probably most importantly, there was a clear consensus to delete this article as it stood. Secondly, I felt that the delete votes were better informed by our policies than the keep votes were. I myself am Jewish, and am fully aware of the issues involved in this subject; however, I too felt that the article as it stood controvened WP:OR, therefore I saw no reason to go against the majority of votes. My deletion of the article does not mean that the subject is either non-encyclopaedic or unwelcome, but that the article as it stood was in contravention of our policies (a matter which numerous editors agreed upon). An article on this subject must be sourced in detail as the Christian view of Hanukkah is far from universal. Rje 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- thank you for making it available for review, the article is only a paragraph longer than it was last time I looked at it. IZAK (Jewish) wrote most of it, so I'll prod him. I've no idea what needs "sourcing" as most of it seems to be actual quotes from religious texts. Most of it I've heard in sermons from time to time on the Christian upbringing side, so there might be seminary material somewhere, but I'm long since lapsed and have nobody to ask. Believe me, there's nothing original to somebody raised 5 days a week North American Baptist (with Jewish relatives by marriage). --William Allen Simpson 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  I, along with those who voted to delete the article, am not suggesting that IZAK made up the conent of this article. The problem is that the views expressed in the article are not universal, they are those of certain individuals (I am unaware of any Christian denomination having a specific policy towards the religious festivals of other faiths). This being the case, the article absolutely must be sourced (this is made clear at WP:OR). Like I said earlier, I don't think anybody is disputing that some Christians observe Hanukkah; the problem is that it is such a minority, combined with the fact that there is no standard way in which they perform their observations, that it is necessary for this article to contain sources for it to conform with Wikipedia's established policies. Rje 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry that you're not familiar with a significant number of denominations here in the American Heartland. Merely millions of people is a "minority" when compared to Roman Catholicism.... Anyway, the only contribution I made at the time was to merge 2 similar articles, and that's how it ended up on my watchlist. While I had an important legal brief due last Thursday, I rarely check the watchlist more than once a week anyway. Now, I've done a simple Google, and among the 847,000 results, there are several that outrank even Wikipedia! They are eternalperspectives.com, biblestudy.org, and thetribulationforce.com, all "evangelical" or "messianic", just as the article says! Like I mentioned earlier, some seminarian probably has it printed in a book somewhere, but I'm not the person to ask. Looks like User:Bill Thayer is correct about the future viability of wikipedia.... --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• IZAK's response: Hi everyone: Right off the bat let me make it very clear that I did not write this article (it's actually a stub). This material was mostly first added in 2004 by User:Chad A. Woodburn -- please contact him, his user page says he is a Christian pastor and he seems to still be active. I have not tracked it, but you guys have now forced me to look up its history, so here goes: After User:Chad A. Woodburn put it into the Hanukkah article it developed as something of a composite from a few subsequent editors, (examples:) [19] ; [20] ; [21] (there are more). When I was editing the main article about the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, rather than deleting this information which was causing constant friction between the Jewish and non-Jewish contributors I opted to move it into a more appropriate article in existence at that time called Evangelical Christian views of Hanukkah (interestingly, User:Chad A. Woodburn, the author seems to fit into that stream judging by what he writes about himself) which was then renamed in another move by User:William Allen Simpson where it got its new name of Christian views of Hanukkah. So that is why there is some confusion, also see the article's history page. Note that this issue of sources was also raised [22] by User:TheRingess. Thus I hope I have clarified the questions you have here. Take care. IZAK 19:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. By the way, I vote Undelete, as I had no idea about its present fate. It deserves an article of its own. IZAK 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you, IZAK, for taking the time! --William Allen Simpson 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It may deserve an article on its own (that's my opinion, others may differ), but what was there was completely unreferenced. At least Hanukkah bush has ample footnotes. Cheers! Dr Zak 15:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A cautionary tale -- in the AfD, somebody thought this was a copyvio. As the history revealed by IZAK shows, the cited page is actually a copy of wikipedia from several months later than the original section! --William Allen Simpson 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Look guys, I know this is an emotive subject, I really do, but the purpose of this process is not to challenge the outcome of the AfD debate. That debate has been concluded, the purpose of this page, as is clearly stated in the introduction, is to challenge my interpretation of that outcome. Without wishing to appear rude, it is not relevent to this discussion what your oppinion of the article was, or whether you missed the debate or not. What is relevent is whether you think a) I misjudged the consensus to delete, or b) that, if there was such a consensus, that the votes were not valid. I am sorry if I appear a little hot-headed about this, but the existence of this debate suggests quite a serious error on my part. Rje 19:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The votes were not valid. 3 cite a copyvio that did not exist. The nominator and several others call it original research. 4 call it "funny" and a "fork". And the most offensive:

    The "Christian" view of Hanukkah is like the "Dutch" view of Mount Kilimanjaro: not something to have an article about.

    --William Allen Simpson 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Even discounting the copyvio votes, there was a consensus to delete. As I have already stated the article failed our criteria for original research. While I agree that term may not be strictly accurate here, and this may be causing some confusion, if you read to policy page you will realise that the article wa in violation - hence the votes for deletion. Rje 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Legitimate Afd with a clear consensus. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Original consensus was clear. Chick Bowen 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Cut-and-dry AfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Although my vote was the first that mentioned a copyvio, it is important to also note that my main reason was that the article contained original research. Kevin 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus was obvious. Dr Zak 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The WP:NOR argument, raised by the nominator and most of the other people in favour of deletion, was never rebutted by anyone arguing that it should be kept. The person who tried to say it wasn't OR failed to point to any sources, which is odd given that he claims to be studying the subject area. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - consensus was clear and there were no special circumstances. Metamagician3000 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Claught of a bird Dairy Products

I made an article on this famous store on Manitoulin Island. Claught of a bird is indeed an actual person, and he does indeed own that store. I demand that it is un-deleted, for it has good information on one of Manitoulins most popular stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk • contribs) .

• Endorse deletion, even if there were sources it would still be non notable. --Rory096 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, there were no sources...non-notable and unverified. -- Scientizzle 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Various spellings of this article title have been made--each with the same content--and deleted. Articles were created by AppleJuicefromConcentrate and his (painfully obvious) sock puppet, Motorox. -- Scientizzle 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted If not a hoax then a desperate attempt for publciity. Not notable in the slightest. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

LIP6

LIP6 is one of the two largest computer science laboratories in France, with researchers participating at the highest levels (program committees of international conferences, editorial boards of scholarly journals) across a wide variety of computer science disciplines. It is the computer science research arm of Pierre and Marie Curie University (UPMC), the largest science, technology, and medicine university in France, and the highest ranked French university in the University of Shanghai international research ranking. As the researchers also make up the teaching faculty in Computer Science at UPMC, it is, with over 100 faculty, one of the largest Computer Science departments in the world. It is hard to understand how such an institution could not be notable. The copyvio concerns are mitigated by the fact that the contribution came from the copyright holder (the lab) itself. The lab administrators were not contacted, as they should have been following Wikipedia's deletion policy, to see if this would be a problem. The answer would have been that the copyright problem is not a problem, and the needed permissions for use of the text and images can be granted. Furthermore, it is not a commercial promotion. It is true, clearly that the style and content must be modified so that it conforms to Wikipedia's style considerations and NPOV. However, the material provided should serve as a good basis for this, and the original authors are happy to work as part of the Wikipedia community in making the necessary edits. A rewrite is called for, but we do not understand the speedy deletion decision. -- 17:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite The topic seems to be notable, but Wikipedia does not want articles which are merely copy-and-paste jobs from official websites, even if they aren't technically copyvios. We also prefer that articles not be written by their subjects or anyone closely connected with the subject. If anyone cares to write a real article, it would probably stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Based on the evidence available at the time, I would also have deleted this as a probable copyright violation. We have had such severe problems with unsourced and illegal content, especially violations about images, that we have unfortunately been forced to take aggressive actions. A rewrite seems appropriate but please be very careful to document the copyright provenance of any text or images copied over. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Request undeletion of rewritten article I did precisely as suggested here, writing a short article with no copyvio, following the structure and style of an established article on another computer science laboratory, and, not even eight hours later, the new article has vanished. It seems whoever did this does not care to partake in the deletion review process, as no justification for deleting the rewritten article has appeared in this thread. Nor, does it seem, has this new deletion respected the general criteria for speedy deletion, which specifically says: "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical", which it clearly is not. MyPOV 6:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The deleting admin has already self-reverted the action and apologized in the edit summary. Rossami (talk)

Oz categories

CfD

There used to be several categories sorting the inamates in the Oz TV series:

• Category:Homeboys of Oz
• Category:The Aryan Brotherhood in Oz
• Category:Muslim Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Latin Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Italian Prisoners of Oz

Which were deleted recently by a few people who were against it. (Unfortunately, this deletion vote was not mentioned in any page, so no one could speak for these categories.

As you may see, there are too many articles regarding oz's prisoners, and this categorizing must take place. It should be also mentioned that these categories had some text in them portraying these gangs, and describing the main event that had happened to them during the course of the series.

I will put a link in here in the series' article talk page. Thanks! OzOz 11:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• endorse closure and keep deleted. I suggested to the review nominator that he perhaps write an article like Gangs of Oz (TV series) and include the information that he wants to have in the categories there, but it looks like he has rejected that idea. Categories should not have significant text in them, just guidelines for what should be included in that category. He could then have little headers for Fooians of Oz, describe the gang, and link to whatever related articles were needed either in a text or list form. Original multiple category discussion was here and previous Irish prisoners deletion discussion was here, and I was the closing admin in both cases. Syrthiss 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Was a very usefull categorizing IMO. I don't care about the text, though. As far as I'm concerned, it can be sent to a different article. Jimbryho 09:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Randy MacFarFarAway 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and keep deleted. Proper notice was given on the categories themselves, and the vote was unanimous to merge. No valid reason has been given for overturning the CFD. The text that OzOz mentions above is irrelevant, because anything beyond a brief description of a category's contents should be put in articles, not in categories. Postdlf 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, CfD got it right. This was an unnecessary categorization. --Cyde↔Weys 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is kind of irrelevant, but why were there redirects to those categories in articlespace? --Rory096 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the admin arrived at the only conclusion available from the discussion, the categories were correctly tagged: process was followed correctly. Moreover the Category:Oz (TV series) characters does not seem to require subcategories at this time. Tim! 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I voted to keep them (with some renaming), but nearly everybody else felt otherwise, so I think the admin came to the right conclusion. They can all go in the main Oz characters category.--Mike Selinker 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. There are about 60 articles there not including the CO's (Which some of you suggested to be sent to the main category along with the inmates. It needs to be sorted better. Plus, I believe that many readers might be interested only in the inmates of a certain gang (Instead of the entire category where all of the inmates shown throughout the series' run are put together. Yuval madar 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hulk 2

• Overturn. The article on Hulk 2 was previously voted for deletion because it was pretty much unverifiable. Web research on the topic at that time (June 2005) only produced actors confirming they _would not_ be involved in a Hulk sequel. On 28 April 2006, Marvel confirmed that a sequel to the 2003 film was under development.

Currently the article Hulk 2 is protected and redirects to Hulk (film). I therefore propose that the page be edited to redirect to The Incredible Hulk (film) (the apparent working title of the film) which in turn redirects to the Sequel section of the 2003 film article. When sufficient information about the new film becomes available, the sequel information can then be spun out into its own article. Journeyman 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Your suggestion would create a Double redirect, which is a Bad Thing. Ask again when you are ready to create the standalone article. Thryduulf 07:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, premature per Thryduulf. When the article is written, I don't even think you need DRV; you can ask any admin to unprotect Hulk 2 and then properly redirect it. Thatcher131 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think the protection is needed, so I unprotected it.  Grue  12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

22 May 2006

Xombie

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xombie

It was deleted due to not meeting WP:WEB. Xombie has been in two magazines so far Fangoria and Rue Morque]. This isn't advertising for the site, its about the flash cartoon that's being turned into a movie, how can Wikipedia not have this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with the AFD discussion. Had I seen this deletion discussion, I would also have argued to delete. I can not convince myself that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include entries for every flash cartoon that comes along. Rossami (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. Af first glance, this seems to be a classic "No consensus" AfD, but only one of the delete votes was valid: one was from an anon, and the other was from a very new user. That puts it right on the border for admin's discretion, and in this case, the closing admin applied it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. So here's a situation where the article clearly did not show it met WP:WEB upon its deletion, and we now have evidence that it, in fact, does meet WP:WEB. Without seeing what was there before, I don't know what the article looked like, but given that it seems that process is being followed by coming to DRV instead of just recreating, and WP:WEB (the justification for deletion) is now met, we should undelete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Valid AfD, per Deathphoenix's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete, not every flash cartoon that comes along gets made into a feature-length film released on DVD. Furthermore, this series clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:WEB. AfroDwarf 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete no consensus on AfD and some claims to notability were presented.  Grue  12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Howell

In the heat of the moment of deletion, many failed to look at the facts. A notable West Virginian.

• SBA Exporter of the Year for WV 2003
• Inducted into WV's GeneratioNext, 40 WV Leaders under 40
• Award from the WV Office of Tourisms Motorsports Council for promoting the State Through Motorsports

Nationally Known Automotive Person in TV and Print

• Car and Driver Magazine 2003, circulation world wide 1 million +
• C&D Magazine SuperCar Challenge Winnner. Considered to be the best of the best tuners in the world
• Mopar Muscle top Magazine for Dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler Products
• Named a Mopar mover and shaker in 1999 by Mopar Muscle Magazine
• Internet Movie Database
• DIY Networks Tricked Out-SRT-4 Exhaust Episode
• DIY Networks Tricked Out-Computer Episode

International Credit Card Fraud Expert

• CBS Evening News
• Wall Street Journal May 1, 2003
• Japanese National Television Appearence on Credit Card Fraud
• Lectures to groups nationwide on Credit Card Fraud Oct 31st 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM - How to Prevent & Reduce Losing Money to Credit Card Fraud

--71Demon 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been deleted twice; the first time following an AfD (Admins can see the final version before this deletion at [23]), with the consensus being that the article failed WP:BIO, WP:CORP and/or WP:VAIN. Having seen the content of the deleted version I would also have voted to delete for these reasons. The second time (earlier today) it was speedy deleted as an nn-bio (CSD:A7) but it could also have been deleted under CSD:G4 (recreation of previoulsy deleted material), that version [24] contained even less information than the previously deleted version and no substantiated notability claims so this was a perfectly valid deletion. Endorse deletions but allow recreation iff notability can be established. I suggest that you start composing an article in your userspace and only move it to the main namespace when it substantially improves on the first version to avoid a further speedy deletion under G4 or A7. If notability is still not established then there should be no prejudice against a second AfD. Thryduulf 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Never should have been deleted. Meets all criteria for a good Wikipedia article. --70.17.192.78 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/Restore this never should have been deleted --63.243.30.51 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• As far as I see it the facts weren't actually presented in such clarity during the afd debate, and so I don't see that the decision to delete was wrong. I'm with Thryduulf: if notability can be established then restore. -- Francs2000 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that I must disagree with the assertion that the facts above were not considered. In fact, they were clearly documented in the deleted version of the article. I find little evidence convincing me that they were ignored or overlooked by the discussion participants. I must also disagree with 71Demon's specific assertion above that Howell is an "international credit fraud expert". Three of the four articles he/she cites as evidence demonstrate no such thing. (The fourth is in Japanese so I could not evaluate it.) Howell was interviewed as a small business owner who has been affected by international credit card fraud. He is no more "expert" than any other small business owner so afflicted.
  I endorse closure (keep deleted) but, as Thryduulf said, there is no prejudice against a new article more thoroughly documenting his achievements. If such an article is written and upheld, we can do a history-restore at that time. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. Allow re-creation if the article addresses the concerns mentioned above and in the AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• (Caveat: I was the nom on the AfD in question). Endorse closure as a valid, good-faith AfD. I have no prejudice to recreation as long as it illustrates notability. To do so, the article should focus on Howell's work in the world of hot rods and automobiles (where he may possibly be notable in a relative sense) and it should prove said notability in that field. His status as a guy that has been interviewed because his business was ripped off (at least until his book is published) and his goal of seeking a seat on a local county commission should only be mentioned as side-notes and do not contribute either way to his notability or lack there of. youngamerican (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New Sincerity

This article needed expanding, not deleting. It is a verifiable media theory, although the article itself needed work. The opinion when discussed was mixed, but this is a real and serious theory that should have a place on Wikipedia. If the article is not reinstated, can I at least have the original content to be worked into a fuller, referenced article that can be? --Hippo Shaped 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Sincerity for the deletion debate.

• Endorse deletion but allow userfication. This was a valid closure of the AfD, but based on the comments by some participants it seems as though there is potential for a valid, verifiable article and indeed some work was done to improve the article during the debate, but this was not enough to influence a turnaround in voting. I recommoned that Hippo Shaped be allowed the content to work on it. I feel that it do the article good not to be associated with some of its mid-life incarnations as these were detrimental to people's opinions of it at AfD. Thryduulf 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I voted keep on the AfD discussion, but it was closed properly, if you can come up with a valid, verifiable article, then please recreate it in your User space and bring it back here for review. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. It was relisted twice, so it was a bit of a difficult one (though when I relisted it the second time, I didn't realise it was already relisted), but I think it was closed appropriately. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Successful Praying

I request the return of the article on the book Successful Praying because it was deleted without due respect for the deletion process. I would ask that this request be based on whether or not due process was followed (which I think is strong) and not on whether the article may or may not survive a more considered delete process (which I admit is less strong). See also the discussion with the admin about this deletion. Thanks, Brusselsshrek 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Technical undelete as it clearly wasn't a speedy candidate, however I recommend Brussels writes an article on the author Frederick Julius Huegel instead of or at least before writing an article on his book. Articles on authors can frequently contain most of the useful information about their writing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I have little doubt this was done in good faith, a table of contents of a book is copyrighted. After stripping the TOC and the copyrighted cover images (they can only be used in articles that discuss the book -- not ones that say Title is a book by so and so), all you have left is "Successful Praying, subtitled an explanation of ten rules which guarantee answered prayer is the title of a book by Frederick Julius Huegel." with an ISBN and a link. I don't think that result was an article. I would agree that an article about the author is probably more feasible, but if Brussel can mention something about the book other than the basic details (especially what makes the book special enough for an entry), I have little problems with a recreation. But I don't think the original should be reinstated. Userfy if he wants to expand. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I had fully intended to write more information about the contents of the book, but the stub was deleted within DAYS of it being created. The TOC was there to form a skeleton for what I was about to write. To argue that the content was not sufficient to justify recreation misses many important points:
    1. the article had only been created a few days earlier (thus deleted contrary to wikipedia guidelines of allowing a stub a reasonable time to develop).
    2. the author of the article was not informed of the deletion, except as a "speedy-delete" (while he was asleep) and so had no chance to add the real value which is suggested was missing
    3. the proper procedure was not followed, and I as the person to have most suffered from this lack of procedure, am simply asking for the right to create the article which I wanted to create.

    I will add that I have now spent a huge amount of time simply fighting against this speedy-delete, and it is a real tragedy that I waste almost all of the time I spend on Wikipedia editing recently because what I see as this admins blunder, rather than contributing useful stuff.Brusselsshrek 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Unfortunately, Brusselsshrek's statement of his/her intention to expand the stub past copy-vio status does nothing to protect the project. Every page must stand alone as is at the time you hit the "save page" button. The courts have not yet sanctioned us for tolerating copyvios for short periods but that is a theory that we should not test. Take the time to write a solid, non-copyvio stub. Then post it.
  As to Brusselsshrek's claims that he/she was not informed, no notice is required nor is any such notice appropriate (though it can, in some cases, be courteous). Please read (or re-read) WP:OWN. None of us has any claim to ownership of any page here. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, per Mgm & Rossami. Sorry, Brusselsshrek, dealing with copyvios takes precedence over everything. Even if you plan to expand the article, any content that is a copyright violation is simply not acceptable (for legal reaasons) and must be removed from the article history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Deathphoenix. Although I would have taken a different route (tagging the copyvio and asking the editor to userfy it until it was further along) the destination is the same. Thatcher131 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get the point about copyvio. Question though, I have done the identical thing for the article The Cross and the Switchblade, that is, I have scanned the front/back cover of the book. Is that not copyvio? What is the guideline? I know there's a lot of general stuff written here about copyvio, but what is the story on book covers? Can I or can't I copy them? The book covers for the Successful Praying article were scanned at exactly the same resolution or size as the book cover for The Cross and the Switchblade for which nobody seems to be saying anything. Thanks for clarifying. Brusselsshrek 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the guideline at WP:FAIR it seems that a scan of a book cover to accompany an article about the book is ok. However, copying the text from the jacket so as to constitute the body of the article is definitely not. I would say that at least half of The Cross and the Switchblade is an unacceptable copyright violation. You should find some other way to describe the contents of the book in your own words. Thatcher131 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Videohypertransference

Wow... I really hope I am doing this right. Sincere apologies if I am getting this protocol wrong - I am quite a newbie. I have 2 points to make about the deletion of this article, or maybe 3. 1) May I have the text copied to my userspace? If all else fails here, I would at least be interested in getting the latest version of the text for my own personal use. 2) I didn't get any warning about the deletion notice (prolly because I didn't login for a couple of weeks), so I never got a chance to say anything about the deletion vote. I think the article is a valid attempt, and I would be happy to try and source the article a bit more thoroughly. However, as I pointed out on the discussion page, there isn't much information directly available on this topic via Google. It is a very recent phenomenon, and I did my best to scientifically describe the empirical facts. This is just my opinion, but I often find people have a very strange view of what science is! 3ish) I think the article can be improved if it is fully undeleted. The phenomenon of videohypertransference is a real one, and deserves documenting. It has grown out of the rise of video (and video nasties) in the west, and the popularity of video game culture in Japan. Thanks for your consideration, --Dan|^(talk) 08:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved the text to User:Dmb000006/Videohypertransference. Please stick a {{delete|unwanted user subpage}} notice on it when this deletion review is closed and you're otherwise done with the text, as Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Anyway, I think the main issue is: does anyone actually refer to this as "videohypertransference"? Otherwise the article is fundamentally original thought. In the absence of specific new evidence that would theoretically have caused the very clear consensus in the AfD to be otherwise, endorse closure. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... Would it be possible to get the discussion page restored too? I made some useful comments for the would-be deleter on that page, as well as some notes regarding the stories in the media. Thank you! --Dan|^(talk) 06:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, which was overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

17 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)

• Overturn and rename per local usage. Manifestly improper close, ignoring WP:Consensus to start the useless thing, an Anglo-American language dispute. Septentrionalis 04:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo. "Motor manufacturers" would be manifestly misleading, as the companies in question actually produce whole cars, rather than merely exporting motors to be installed in some other country. — May. 12, '06 [22:04] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Note that the industry trade body is called the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and of course a Motor manufacturer produces more than Engines. Ian3055 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What a confusingly named organization. — May. 15, '06 [07:44] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Like the man said, local differences. Car driver = motorist. Car salesman = motor trader. Automobile is almost unusued this side of the pond, we find "car" shorter and more convenient. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• This got no attention and I have no idea what to do with it, so I've moved it to the top of the heap. And subst the subpage, because I hate them like poison. - brenneman^{L} 12:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to match local usage, no good reason to ignore the consensus that CFD came up with. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo - I would prefer "motor vehicle manufacturers" (which sometimes gets abbreviated to "motor manufacturers"), but surely this isn't worth much of a fuss over. The outcome reached was sensible enough to stand. Metamagician3000 11:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• For values of sensible which include using a term which is simply not used at all in some of the countries named... Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 18 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)

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)