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.

• Aww Nigga - I merged what I could remember into Internet phenomenon (though the speedying was debatable, I won't press it) then redirected, but it would help to see what was there before. --Rory096 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 November 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 16}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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 or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

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

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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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:) [2] ; [3] ; [4] (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 [5] 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)

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)

Oz categories

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)

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)

Amiga Virtual Machine

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amiga virtual machine

Ask for undelete an article about Amiga redirected to 68k, while it has only some marginal relationship with 68K. See Talk:Amiga virtual machine to read all my points why "to undelete" review this article. Here I will made only a light summary of it.

1. The Ask for deletion was inconsistent.
2. There is nothing related in the article about Amiga Virtual machines which justify the redirection to 68000.
3. ABOX has two code interpreters built in: the one for M68000 code, the second for PowerPC PPC603e.
4. Amiga Anywhere AVM for example has nothing related with 68000.
5. during voting the main reasons to delete article by its detractors is related to a certain ignorance about Amiga and its technical features. Amiga it still on the market and evolving.
6. Reasons for Deletion were mainly (as clearly shown into voting discussion) by people who demonstrated hatred versus Amiga platform.
7. Abuse: During votations for deletion/keep there were censorshipped the reasons why to keep the article. (see history of the vote discussion related entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_16)

Conclusions:
This facts, i.e. the substantial inconsistence of the Request for Deletion, the presence of evident flamebaits, an evident abuse of censorship, obviously keep prevent other readers to judge with equity.
Also the article couldn't be redirected on 68K page, because three of the AVM have nothing in common with Motorola 68000 except the fact they made use of bundled Code Interpreter of 68000 as a simple bonus.

• ABOX main internal interpreter engine has PPC code interpreter (68000 interpreter is secondary one)
• Amiga Anywhere has no 68000 emulation bonus at all.

I want also to point you all that Amiga Virtual Machine article itself is well written and documented, it was also being edited to match all wikipedia standards.
Here it is all about my points. This is why I strongly ask to you all moderators it will be undelete and restored at the moment of its last revision editing. Thank you in anticipation for your attention and patience.
With respect, --Raffaele Megabyte 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• The content has never been deleted. The AFD discussion was closed as "merge" - a flavor of "keep". Disputed mergers are discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. Please return to the Talk pages to reach consensus on whether the merger should be kept or reversed. In necessary, consider the Request for Comment process. A Deletion Review discussion is not suited to help you make this decision. Rossami (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• The content has never been merged. There is nothing about AVM in the [68k article]. Seems to me a deletion hidden by redirect.

To ask you some more clarifications on how to continue democratically fight to obtain that all the article will be re-issued... and not to play sort of "pass the buck" game that it was redirect->merge->delete->unrelated-etc... then, how could be the possible steps I can follow to obtain justice?

Sure I at this moment do not want to bother Request for Comment moderators, while the facts stated that the article is actually vanished.

Is this sort of bureaucratic (and kafkian) moebius-like loop-hole situation?????

Situation requires that someone of high level moderators should take the responsibility for any decision about this strange merge = delete.

Such a decision sholud be really a Solomon-like one, and not a Pilatus-like one such as: «I wash my hands» = i.e. «It is not of my business» which brings the results really not to take any decision at all.

Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The history is there, anything that should be merged can still be merged, and I still think that article itself made no sense because of the reasons I stated on the deletion page and elsewhere (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NFT for as the term "AVM" is concerned). LjL 19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• response. So, my dear mr. LjL about your objections of «WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NFT for as the term "AVM" is concerned» I think you have nothing to object if I ask to allow recreation if notability can be established. Do you have any objection?

To support my request I created a list of links into Talk:Amiga_virtual_machine (see paragraph 9), and I ask all readers and moderators (please) to check various notability of the related Amiga Virtual Machine attested terms in numerous sites.

Obviously also NPOV exists beacuse there are many non-amiga sites attesting it (even Slashdot.org and IBM).

Also WP:NOR WP:NFT are not relevant because we are talking about commercial products existing starting since 1998 up today, and there are plenty of primary and secondary sources; no school works, no neologisms at all! Amiga Virtual Machine is not a neologism, it is a common term to define a series of phenomena already present for many years and now emerging.

Sincerely--Raffaele Megabyte 03:17, 24 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)

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 [6]), 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 [7] 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)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, which was overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

21 May 2006

Church of Reality

I want to hear countering viewpoints of the Church of Reality, after seeing bumper stickers in San Francisco. It looks like the page is permanently deleted, but no explanation has been given as to why. It is an athiestic organization: is the page being suppressed by political opponents? Please reinstate to allow open information exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.103.182 (talk • contribs)

• Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. It was then speedied a bunch of times when recreated. --W.marsh 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Without voting one way or the other yet, I'll answer: no, of course it's not being oppressed by political opponents. Repeat that too much and you'll just end up sounding like a bunch of paranoid kooks. Now, has anything changed since the AfD to make the Church of Reality more notable or give it more verifiable, published information? rspeer / yYYdsy 07:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Azn people in United States

User:Vegaswikian has been deleting the pages which link to the Asian American page under the assumption that "internet slang" is not covered under a reason for a redirect page, but I User:Dark Tichondrias believe the alternative spelling is covered in Wikipedia's redirect reasons. On Wikipedia:Redirect page the third reason for a redirect is for other spellings and punctuations. "Azn" or "AZN" are an alternative spelling for Asian. These alternative spellings are used on the internet, but the fact they are used on the internet has no bearing on their status of being an alternative spelling. --- Dark Tichondrias 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, and delete other implausible redirects created by the same user. - Mike Rosoft 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm another editor who's been going through and cleaning up the myriad of redirects you consider an alternative spelling, and I'm hard pressed to figure out how someone would type "Asain (Office of Management and Budget)" into the search box.  RasputinAXP  c 00:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - highly tenuous. Metamagician3000 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Kp dltd. LjL 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. LjL stole my line. · rodii · 02:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, but don't waste time on deleting other implausible redirects by the same user. His time would have been better spent creating articles with substance, but the presence of these redirects didn't, I think, hurt anyone. We shouldn't be wasting our time deleting harmless redirects. (If this discussion were about whether to perform the initial deletions or not, I would have voted Keep, I think...) --Lukobe 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Redirects for typos are fine, being lazy and not typing all letters is not. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Don't want to open the floodgates for other nonsensical internet-speak redirects. leet leg@l d00dz as a redirect to Supreme Court, anyone? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• You mean it wasn't already? ;)  RasputinAXP  c 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "Azn" is more than just an internet slang term. Our local television cable provider carries AZN television, an English language network for Asian viewers (mainly Filipino). However, the vast numbers of redirects being created is silly and verging on disruptive, considering how much space they take up in Recent Changes. No vote. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and chase down the dozens of others: as one of the mop-wielders who had to clear this lot out of CAT:CSD I can assure you that there were a huge number, all of which were pretty much nonsensical. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted at the risk of sounding eletist, somone who can't tell the difference between IM slang and an encyclopedia probably won't learn too much here anyway. Thatcher131 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Thatcher131, Andrew Lenahan, & Rasputin.--WilliamThweatt 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted An unencyclopedic and unnecessary term. Anybody who knows "AZN" knows Asian.--Folksong 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AlmightyLOL

Overturn This site has grown effectively in prominence over the internet subculture since it's conception in December 2005. I know alot of fucktards have been screwing with the page, but what if somebody comes to wikipedia and wants to know what almightyLOL is? Is wikipedia just going to say "sorry, bro, you're on your own with this one", or refer people to encyclopedia dramatica? All I'm asking for is to write a stub expalining what it is, slip a link in at the bottom of the page, then have it put on protected. Doesn't that make sense? WALKER--

• Endorse deletion, valid A7 speedy, even if it wasn't the ongoing AfD was a snowball delete, no new arguments presented. I remind its members again that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• By the way, this is a wiki. No article may be permanently protected. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Properly deleted pages that are repeatedly recreated may be but it shouldn't be commonly needed. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted without being able to see the deleted content but with the help of google searches and archive looks to compensate it looks like this is yet another fad that doesn't deserve an article and I agree with Samuel Blanning that it would be a snowball and quite possibly a speedy close AFD if it were to go there. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• comment I understand WP:NOT, but I also understand what it is, a source of information available to the public. If people need to know what almightyLOL is, then wikipedia should be their first source of information. If I were to go around posting an external link to almightylol from every other page, that would be advertising. But an article simply telling what it is should be allowable. WALKER 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  So you're arguing against Wikipedia:Verifiability then? If there are reliable sources talking about AlmightyLOL, then we might have something to write about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  To rephrase what GTBacchus said, Wikipedia is never the first source for anything. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources, that is, they are the third source after reliable journals, newspapers and other publications with suitable fact-checking standards. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well then, where's the source for the page on YTMND?

  Keep deleted. Good idea, let's delete YTMND and related junk. Where do you think the fucktards are coming from? · rodii · 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, YTMND references such sources as CNN and The Wall Street Journal, because it's a notable enough phenomenon that those publications decided it was worth a mention. Has AlmightyLOL received coverage in the national mainstream press? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and protection, this thing has been deleted three times in less than three months. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protection BTW: You're not going to win support by calling people "fucktards."--Folksong 20:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

List of video game collector and special editions

Overturn and Rename The majority of the calls for deletion at the original AFD debate found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game collector and special editions were made before the article was even complete 10% of its state at the time of deletion. All votes to keep the page however were made after most progress had been made. Originally then, the nomination was much more valid, but as the page took shape and it's purpose and scope were better defined, it became a very useful and focused resource for people to use. I DO however, suggest it is renamed to something like "List of NA video games with limited editions" to better call attention to what it covers. The list is not unmaintainable as some asserted, only a handful of games get such a release every year; and it is not indiscriminate when you put focus on and understand the "limited" aspect, and limit inclusion to games released in the NA market (as admittedly numerous Japan released games get limited editions). There are perhaps another dozen or two more games beyond what the list already covered. Suggestions that people should visit hundreds of individual games pages to see if a game has a special edition is ridiculously inefficient (and makes the assumption those pages even mention such a release); this puts everything on one page, with the added benefit of describing what made each limited edition special (unlike the beginning when it was merely a literal list of titles). If anything I learned not to put up a page until it is more or less done. Also I was insulted by the admin's insinuation I used multiple accounts on the AFD page to bias the discussion, if anything its proof there are people who value such information. Deusfaux 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also any comparisons to this being similiar to a list of special edition dvd movies is invalid as the total # of limited edition video games ever released would not equal even one year's worth of "special/limited" edition dvds (which sees nearly every title get such a release.) An easily maintainable list. Deusfaux 13:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Those arguing for deletion did not do so on the basis that the list was incomplete, so their rationales applied to the article as it stood at deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But then what basis DID they vote on?. When I said it was incomplete I didnt mean as to which titles it included, I meant incomplete as in zero formatting, and <10 titles (names only) all on the same line with no intro or discussion of what the page was attempting to do. If anything, they were based were largely based on the page's title then, as there was little to no article to vote on. How could they vote on the premise for the page when one couldnt even be communicated to them at the time they were viewing it? I would have nominated it for deletion myself. It was junk. However, it wasnt for long, at all. Deusfaux 14:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• You can easily see the basis they voted on if you view the AfD page. You can see their reasonings there. The overwhelming theme was that it was not an encyclopedic list (aka listcruft). Metros232 14:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• And at the time they made those comments, it was true. My issue is that the page was essentially a stub for what would become something substantially different later on, so they are invalid. On Deletion Review: "It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information)," Deusfaux 14:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Users weren't voting on the content of the article, rather the CONCEPT of the article. No matter what you did or put into it, the article would have still be deleted for being an unencyclopedic list. Metros232 15:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Again from above: "How could they vote on the premise for the page when one couldnt even be communicated to them at the time they were viewing it?" Where were they deriving what the concept was supposed to be? The title then? Ironic because I think it should be renamed anyways. Deusfaux 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure the majority of the grounds was listcruft. I agree. Nothing improper. Computerjoe's talk 14:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can anyone even view the page at this point? Just going by the AFD is not appropriate in regards to the reasons called for undeletion.Deusfaux 14:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Apart from the issue of whether early delete votes failed to take into account new evidence, all the reasons for undeletion were addressed in the AfD. Deletion review is not a rematch, it is for reviewing whether process was followed; therefore the AfD and its outcome is the important thing to be considered, not the content of the article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So since the article is vastly different from what was laregly voted on to be deleted, I shouldnt be asking for a review into the process that got it deleted; I should just remake the page and see if people call for it to be deleted then? Deusfaux 15:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If a consensus emerges here that the outcome would have been different if new evidence was considered, only then may the article will be restored and relisted on AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • If indeed your revised version now properly addresses the objections raised in the article's AfD, irrespective of the disposition of deletion review, it would be appropriate for you to recreate the article, although the article would be deleted, perhaps speedily, were it to be exorbitantly similar to the version for which an AfD was already closed. Sam's point apropos of new evidence is, to be sure, correct; if the changes, though, aren't to introduce new evidence as, for example, to notability, but, instead, to reformulate the page such that it no longer is an unencyclopedic list (per WP:NOT), sometimes a new article should simply be created (although I concur in Metros' comment inasmuch as I can't conceive of any version of the list/article that would comport with WP:NOT). The deletion of an article on a given subject does not preclude its recreation (see, e.g., in the case of an article about The Beatles that was speedied as nonsense or AfDed as being unencyclopedic, the deletion of a previous article would not prohibit the creation of an article consistent with Wikipedia policy, given that the subject would surely be notable); it does, though, prohibit recreation of an article substantially similar to that which was deleted (absent new evidence [either presented at DRV or introduced into a new article]). Joe 19:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. This is a sticky situation. It appears that most of the delete votes were indeed based on a proto-version of the article, one which did not have the valuable annotation which the most recent version (as per my recollection) did. As per WP:LIST, an annotated list is a good candidate for keeping rather than making into a category. I don't see anything in WP:NOT that applies to this article. Claims of listcruft are also dubious: the list is of broad interest, the list is not indiscriminate, the content is verifiable, the concept is notable, the list is of sufficient length, the list is maintainable, the list is annotated, and the list is encyclopedic. The important thing is that many of the listcruft criteria were indeed met by the initial version, but were (or may have been) eliminated by the deleted version. That deleted version deserves a second chance, ideally with "Delete" voters providing a more detailed explanation than just "listcruft" (per WP:LC, "listcruft" alone is not by itself sufficient reason for deletion). Powers 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: the list has been replaced with a category (currently nominated for renaming) which in the circumstances is actually more useful. My usual objection to converting a list to a category is that the latter cannot include placeholders for items not currently covered by an article; however there should be nothing in this "list" which does not already have an article and therefore the category is eminently suitable. I was saddened both by the excessive references to listcruft in the AFD discussion, verging on incivility, and by the indications of claimed ownership being displayed by the originator who is now contesting the suggested renaming of the category and threatening to recreate the list. HTH HAND �Phil | Talk 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the category is insufficient as a replacement because it is the annotation present in the list that makes it encyclopedic. That annotation does not exist in the category. Powers 14:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A catergory would likely have links to pages that do not exist, and makes assumptions various game articles mention an L.E. and then makes the assumption those notes describe what the L.E. included or what made it special - all of which is not an issue with the list. BTW, I dont think the page should be renamed because I think it should be deleted altogether for reasons following, also I never "threatened" to remake this list - I asked in this very discussion if that would be appropriate. Deusfaux 08:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking over the catergoy page, a review of the first 10 entries indicate 5 of the linked articles do NOT mention any L.E. in any form (unverifiable), and 3 do not have a L.E. (as was defined to be discriminate) anyways. (they refer to marketing applied "special" editions which are merely re-releases and in no way limited) The page is a joke to wikipedia standards, and people would be far better served by a list with annotation, like the one in review. Deusfaux 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per Powers. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

20 May 2006

WWE Divas Do New York

This articles AfD was closed as no consensus despite a clear mathematical consensus being present. In addition the primary reason given to keep was a comparison to other non-notable subjects that currently have articles (Pokémon test) while the primary reason given for deletion was a lack of reliable sources to support the article. Jester 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Relucant endorse closure. I would certainly have voted to delete if I'd come across this useless substub. However, at the risk of attracting Fuddlemark's wrath again, a 65-70% majority for deletion generally puts the closing within admin discretion - here there was a 66% majority, and with no pressing WP:V concerns or similar, this was a valid 'no consensus' close. Relist it in a week or two if it hasn't been expanded, and upon closing the admin should discount all "keep and expand" 'votes'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Six to two, and the only argument to keep was that other such articles existed. The obvious reply is that those articles ought to torched also. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the precendent of other such articles existing is a very strong argument for keep, IMO.  Grue  14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - I would probably have voted to delete if I'd noticed this, but that is not the issue. Closure was within legitimate admin. discretion. Given circumstances, closure should not prejudice a further AfD. Metamagician3000 15:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but slap a merge tag on there. --Rory096 16:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure This was a reasonable choice within admin discretion. I don't think the subject is of great importance, but it is a DVD released by a major entertainment company, so maintaining the stub is neither absurd nor offensive to policy. Xoloz 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If I were to vote in this AfD, I would have done delete as well, but in this case, it's a 2:1 ratio for delete to non-delete, which is insufficient to delete an article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• It preocuppies me the amount of editors who have said here that they would have "voted delete" on it, so a relist is not a bad idea. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a No consensus vote implies that the article can be re-AfDed relatively soon without having cries of a bad-faith nomination. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but at the same time, some users see a no-consensus close as something which preludes nomination of an article for at least six months. I was thinking more of an immediate relist. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Then those users are wrong. :-) I have no objections to a relisting, but that doesn't get in the way of the no consensus closure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse closure I'm inclined to think I'd have closed as delete, but my lack of certainty likely means that no consensus was the appropriate close; I do believe that a relisting likely would lead to a clearer consensus (namely, to delete), and so I concur in Deathphoenix's observation that a relisting in the not-too-distant future wouldn't be inappropriate. Joe 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure although I too would have voted delete. Re-list and notify me when you do. -M^ask 06:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• In a case like this, where little time has passed and it's mostly just "I missed it" I think that re-opening is the best option. It avoids the scarlet letter of a re-list as well as preserving the opinions of those who've already participated. I'll ask MD if he feels like doing so. In the event that he does not want to re-open, I'll endorse the closure. - brenneman ^{L} 14:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

19 May 2006

Brooks Kubik

I believe that the deletion of the article on Brooks Kubik was not in line with the usual Wikipedia policies. The original AfD nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik) claims that the page was "almost certainly a self-authored page". However, there were multiple contributors to the page, and there was no evidence to suggest that Kubik himself was one of the contributors. The nomination also claims lack of notability. Kubik has written a book called Dinosaur Training, available from many sources on the net (and listed on Amazon, though they no longer have it in stock), and has written articles in several magazines on weight training - Hardgainer, Iron Master, Milo, and his own newsletter, Dinosaur Files. Wikipedia:Notability (people) gives the following as a guideline for living people:

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more

I don't have exact figures on the circulation of his book or the magazines mentioned above, but I believe he qualifies as notable on this basis. I claim that the previous AfD was not made in good faith, and propose that the article be reinstated. Dsreyn 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and Relist so we can get this deleted once and for all – forever. --Ezeu 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - some claim to notability and the AfD was very unsatisfactory with only three ... ahem ... "votes". Metamagician3000 01:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, yeah it looks like an insufficient amount of consensus to delete, so I would have slapped a relist to get more votes as well. Though I find a "speedy keep" vote by Monicasdude to be incorrect (it is not bad faith to put a deprodded article on AfD, it is actually proper policy to do so), it still goes down to keep, so there's insufficient consensus to delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:06, 20 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)

15 May 2006

Structures of the GLA

It is well settled that one does not own a deletion discussion/nomination any more than he/she might own the article about which a discussion is held; indeed, WP:SK makes plain that an AfD may be closed as a speedy keep upon the withdrawal of the nomination only if no other valid delete "votes" have been cast. Notwithstanding this, this article’s AfD was closed after a full week’s discussion as nomination withdrawn; keep without prejudice to any further nomination by any party one month after closure (the latter proviso likely shouldn’t be included, in view our otherwise expressed general disfavoring of rapidly repeated AfD noms, but I’ll not quibble over that). Plainly, many editors argued for deletion, and several argued as well for keep; in view of certain keep justifications, the original nominator agreed with a principal editor of the article to withdraw the nomination in order that the article might be cleaned up. At least four editors, though, made clear that, in view of WP:NOT and WP:OR, they could not see any prospective article that would be appropriate and thus advocated for delete irrespective of revisions. I think delete might be a valid close (and I'd likely, were I the closing admin, interpret the debate as militating for deletion), but I understand that one may perceive no consensus from the debate. In any case, nomination withdrawn was not, in this case, a valid close, and so I recommend that the closure be overturned and either that the discussion be closed as no consensus, or, preferably, in view of some editors’ being confused over nomination withdrawal, relisted. Joe 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete clear consensus to delete, article not encyclopedic (wikipedia is not a game guide). --InShaneee 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Discussion at AFD seems to have generated momentum to change the article to a form more acceptable. Give it a chance, let's not rush where we do not need to. I certainly don't see enough consensus to say delete, and whether the close should be the way it was or should have been no consensus is not worth arguing about since the ultimate result is the same. Martinp 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No consensus and nomination withdrawn likely produce the same result in practice, but it is important to note that AfDs such as this should not be closed simply because the nominator asks that the nomination be withdrawn; the distinction is, from a policy perspective, significant. Joe 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Arguments per policy were strongly in favour of deletion, arguments for keep mostly amount to arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. It's not a vote, etc. - brenneman^{L} 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per InShaneee. At the very least, they need to be merged into one or at the most three articles. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per nom, article went through more than a week's of AfD discussion with the consensus (discounting socks, etc) definitely at delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per JzG. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the person who closed the AfD, I was going to simply abide by the decision, and accept it if the community decided my closure was mistaken. However, it's been suggested to me that it might be helpful if I comment. My reasoning was along the lines of Martinp above. We had a dynamic situation with some prospect emerging of the article being rewritten, with a deadline on that process, and an agreement announced between the article's main critic - the nominator - and someone closely involved in writing it. The nominator was making slightly ambiguous noises about withdrawing the nomination, and there was already some discussion on the article's talk page between those people about how to tackle the task. The problems with the article didn't seem to be something necessarily fundamental. Given the other strong views for delete, my thought was to give this a chance but with a clear statement that it was without prejudice, so no one could cite that the article had survived an AfD and that a further AfD in only a month was abusive or whatever. People who voted delete didn't seem to me to be especially inconvenienced by this - the balance of convenience seemed the other way. There was also some other support for keep, admittedly not all that cogent in itself. I may have made a mistake in closing as nomination withdrawn, in which case my humble apologies, although I believe I have seen other AfDs closed in that way even though there were other votes before the purported withdrawal. If that practice is considered to be against policy, that's fine; I'd appreciate that clarification. I still think the result obtained was a fair one in the rather unusual circumstances, but I'll happily accept whatever is decided here. Metamagician3000 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Imposing a one-month ban on anyone representing that article for AFD is a dangerous precedent, IMO. I see no problem whatsoever with you deciding on a speedy keep considering the special circumstances, but the one month ban seems dangerous. A speedy keep because of a withdraw is essentially saying, "it never happened". BigDT 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Point of clarification for whatever it's worth. As I saw it the effect of my statement was the opposite: to ensure that a new AfD brought after only one month would not be prejudiced by the fact that there had been a recent AfD. Without that statement, there was a danger that someone would resist the next AfD by saying, "Survived an AfD only a few weeks ago." The statement protected people who would want to vote to delete if the article could not be rewritten in that timeframe into something more encylopedic. Metamagician3000 10:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Ok, I see what you are saying now. Thank you for explaining it. BigDT 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist The flat count here is 25d/9k = 73% del. Given that Metamagician considered the substantive developments in the article's status, including a compromise between the nominator and creator, I cannot call his closure wrong on the result. Unfortunately, Joe is quite correct that the wording of his closure was process-defective; friends above also make clear that there is heavy sentiment in favor of deletion. In this circumstance, begin debate afresh, with the compromise on the table from the beginning, and see if the debate takes a different course. Xoloz 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(Have already voted above). This makes sense; clearly there is a mishmash of opinions here and lack of clarity. So relist it now as opposed to in a month. Martinp 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Before I comment on this I want to make this clear: I am the creator of the page and it was I that originaly notified six other users as to the pages AFD. In my opinion its already been settled that the page can not remain on wikipedia in its current form, which is why I agreed to a one month amnesty to see whether I could reorganize the page in to something more befitting wikipedia. In four weeks, if there is no improvement in the article then it will be mass merged with the other structure pages to fom one large page or deleted; there will be no acceptions. Given this there is no reason to relist, nor is there any reason to overturn and delete. TomStar81 05:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Suggest Voluntary Move to Userspace - the article obviously doesn't belong on WP as is. WP is not a random collection of whatever. Move it to userspace and work out the kinks. Then bring it back to represent. BigDT 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as per the above. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. Proto||type 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strange as it may seem for me to be saying this, we must not be slaved to process if a reasonable approach seems to be worked out among all the interested parties. Process is our guide, not our master. Reasonable outcomes are more important than strict process adherence. Despite the large number of people suggesting delete, I'd instead suggest that some time be given to see if this article can be improved. If that really doesn't seem workable for whatever reason, userify the article text so that the main proponent of the rewrite can work on it further and reintroduce it to articlespace once ready. I see what MM3K meant about non predjudice though I also see why it may have been confusingly worded. I suggest that normally it's reasonable that an article not be subjected to continuous AfD after it survives, and that a month or more is a reasonable amount of time to wait between suggesting it for AfD again. But in this case what MM3K was trying to say was that this wasn't a normal close and that it should be eligible for AfD without people using "but it just was" as a defense. Agree the result was fair and endorse closure with a provisional keep result. ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree w/r/to process; I think the point others are making (though I'm not certain I agree entirely) is that, whatever time may be devoted to the rewriting of the article, an article apropos of this subject will never be encyclopedic, in view of WP:OR and WP:NOT (or some combination thereof). Whether that debate actually belongs at DRV is a different discussion (though I'm inclined to think it does)... Joe 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per InShaneee. Naconkantari 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. I agree with Xoloz here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• After thinking this over for the past few days, endorse outcome (if not the precise wording) - article has been kept with no prejudice against (or as I would say "without prejudice to") a further AfD at an early date. I still think this was the commonsense result in the circumstances. Metamagician3000 04:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Prhizzm

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prhizzm

I was somewhat annoyed to come back from a vacation to find this article, which I started, deleted. It would have been nice if the AfD was postponed until I returned, but I suppose I couldn't expect that the nominator check my user or talk pages to see my vacation notice. That said, I feel that my absence affected the outcome of the AfD unfavourably, and also that the AfD had too few participants to be able to show a consensus. In addition, I feel that Prhizzm does meet the requirements in WP:MUSIC, as follows:

I feel Prhizzm meets the two release requirement. Not only does he have two releases on a very notable independent electronic label, he also has one on a second label which is pretty notable in itself. This is in addition to his hippocamp.net release, which may not fit the bill, but which is also somewhat notable. And I know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but Prhizzm does have a full-length album scheduled for release. The term "album" in the requirements is contentious, as there are many EPs which could qualify but which are called EPs anyway. Prhizzm's are quite substantial. In addition, it should be noted that in the electronic music world, EPs are very common, to the point that some artists release primarily, or even exclusively, in that format.

I don't know where one would find information about being "placed in rotation," or even what that really means (does a few plays equal being in rotation?) but Prhizzm's music has been featured on three separate BBC 1 programs (see the bottom of this page), as well as in other venues. BBC 1 is pretty big--I think this should qualify him.

As for media attention, Prhizzm has had his fair share, notably in Eye Weekly a hugely popular entertainment weekly available all over the Greater Toronto Area (see here), and perhaps elsewhere in Ontario.

Also, just a final note, in case there was any possibility of incorrect Google checks being undertaken, the name is Prhizzm, not Phrizzm--this is a common mistake with regards to the name. The former gets many results (over 26,000), the latter, not nearly as many.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, having read around it. As the article says "his first full-length release is expected in early 2007" ; thus far his releases are EPs, he has no Allmusic entry, he has a small amount of airplay (how many never-heard-of-since bands were played by John Peel? I bet there were a load!). I'd say that a full-length release is the bare minimum for notability. I'm sure he'll get there (unless he drops the ball), but right now I don't see how he passes WP:NMG. Assuming the best possible faith on the part of the creator, this is functionally indistinguishable form the many other up-and-coming-but-not-there-yet acts which we see all the time. Sorry. Just zis Guy you know? 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and Relist at AFD since substantial new information is available. JoshuaZ 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist at AfD per JoshuaZ. The consensus at AfD was hardly strong (I am inclined to discount the speedy delete vote, since the commenter didn't grasp what "claim to notability" means.) Against this minimal debate, we have a good-faith article creator unaware of the first debate, and new information of media coverage: each of these is an independent ground for relisting under DRV guidelines. This article deserves a new hearing, hopefully with more community input this time. Xoloz 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Full disclosure: I voted to keep on the first AfD. Though whether Prhizzm passes the exact letter of WP:MUSIC is debatable, I think he does pass the spirit of what WP:MUSIC is supposed to be about (essentially, protecting us from high-school garage bands and the like). This is a notable artist with two releases on a notable label. In the vinyl days, the distinction between an EP and an LP was an important one--in the era of CD, MP3, and iTunes, the distinction is much less important. See the article Extended play for some examples of just how blurry the line between album and EP can get. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist at AfD per JoshuaZ and Xoloz. This likely should have been relisted in any case; I don't know that one could find a consensus in the minimal debate that occurred.I don't know that I'd have been able to find a consensus in the minimal debate that occured. (I refactored this lest one should think me to be questioning the closer's judgment on the whole; I ought to have made clear that I didn't think the closure altogether unreasonable, even as I think it to have been wrong.) Joe 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, don't relist, and admit we were wrong. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist given weak AfD consensus. --Ezeu 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. With improvement, it will be able to meet the independent coverage criterion. --Rob 08:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: per Xoloz and JoshuaZ --David.Mestel 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - the closing admin made a reasonable call on the evidence available at the time, but the circumstances suggest this be given another run. Metamagician3000 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist per Xoloz and JoshuaZ, we made a mistake here. Silensor 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Ardenn 03:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist Borderline
• Endorse deletion per JzG. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this please it should be improved instead Yuckfoo 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

List of proper nouns containing a bang

AfD closed as "No consensus so keep"; 13 votes to delete (including the nomination), 4 to keep (including article author). I know AfD isn't a vote, but this looked like a clear delete to me, so I was surprised by the closing. I'd be interested in hearing the closer's reasoning. · rodii · 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was also surprised by outcome (even though I voted keep), but I don't think this article harms anyone, so it was the right decision.  Grue  12:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear the closer's reasoning as well - I left a message on Tawker's talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Relist (I would say "overturn" but, since I didn't get a chance to "vote" in the original AfD, I won't use this forum to "vote"). This seems like a clear "delete" to me and, pending an explanation from the closing admin, it appears there was consensus to delete.--WilliamThweatt 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn there was definately a consensus to delete here. Not sure how the admin arrived at that descision. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn / Delete - if there is any real reason for this, it could always be made into a category. 13-4 is a consensus and the closing admin did not make any note of sockpuppetry or anything else that would invalidate the count, thus, it should be deleted. BigDT 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - non notable. We could make list of proper/common/whatever nouns containing any letter or punctuaction mark, but that's not an encyclopedia topic IMHO (more like an idea for a better search engine perhaps). Also, I agree that 13/4 is consensus. LjL 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse decision, AFD came to a very reasonable outcome. This is a perfectly reasonable article and I can imagine it being quite useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please present a plausible hypothetical situation in which it would be useful? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Branding research, e.g. tracking companies or films that employ an exclamation point vs. ones that don't. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• No vote yet... I'd like to hear User:Tawker's reasoning first. This could conceivably fall in the range of reasonable sysop discretion, but I'd really like to hear it explained. It was highly inappropriate to close it this way without putting an explanation in the close itself. The reasoning behind some of the "keeps" seems dubious ("It is an exciting look into the history of entertainment, which is not possible to find using Wikipedia's search engine"), and the reasoning behind some of the "deletes" seems sound... particularly "First write an encyclopedic article on the use of exclamation marks in proper names, of course adhering to WP:V, WP:RS, and most importantly WP:N. Then create the list and link to that article at the header." When I look at the discussion I see: a vote clearly exceeding the 2/3 rule of thumb; no obvious voting irregularities; and no rationales on either side that are so excessively inappropriate as to warrant anything beyond a simple count. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Couldn't this be better served by a category, anyhow? As the article stands, it's just unwieldy and impractical to maintain. (Oh, and the original AfD closing looks...odd. But I'm basing my opinion on the article as it stands.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A category would be a poor choice as from the perspective of someone reading the article like Oklahoma!, this will likely be viewed as clutter. Anyone looking for the information in this list will probably arrive either from Google or from exclamation point, and anyone else will probably regard it as fairly trivial. Such information as this page contains is useful, so it's worth keeping, but we should keep it on its own page as its likely audience is relatively small. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist I agree with Dpbsmith that it is a major flaw of policy and process to render this kind of decision without an extensive explanation: quite frankly, though I'd like to hear what Tawker has to say, I think too late for him now to offer a rationalization for the close. At the same time, I appreciate that this result is not terribly inappropriate; we have a 75% deletion consensus, which could default to "no consensus/keep" given complicating circumstances. Mr. Parham raises a good possible use for the list. When a closure is this flawed, but the article is neither clearly meritorious, nor clearly meritless, the solution is to throw out the closure, and restart the process. Xoloz 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist I was altogether prepared to advocate for overturn and delete, but I suppose I am persuaded by Xoloz that the closure can be understood as not wholly baseless (even as this may not be Xoloz's main point), and that, because neither the keeps nor the deletes make a prima facie case, we ought to relist. Joe 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn previous close, close relist according to consensus, whichever, just delete. "Useless" is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. It's a list - there's no question of whether the nouns actually have bangs in them or not, or whether saying they have a bang is neutral, it's just... useless. That's all AfD can say about lists most of the time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• relist this please it can be used for branding research like suggested Yuckfoo 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My Rationale

I'm not going to go into a vote by vote rationale (unless someone wants me to) but in short I put the no consensus so keep as it was very grey on the border of deletion, it is not "votes" per say in AfD, its more what people have to say. In short, most of the deletes were leaning on "useless" or "cruft" whereas the keeps were along the "useful until search engine is improved" and or starting point. Wikipedia is not paper, the costs of keeping such a list are partically nil and seeing how it was very grey on consensus and seeing a pretty valid keep reason I thought it would be best to error on the side of caution and keep. I am not objected to a relist / review by another admin, thats just how I saw it -- Tawker 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking another look at the discussion above I've relisted -- Tawker 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And further to this, after relisting, I've deleted the article, as the consensus was now heavily towards delete (and I'm just going through the whatlinkshere). Proto||type 09:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete. Several of us had suggested a relist. If we closed the DRV now (after these out-of-process moves), it would deserve a relist. Xoloz 17:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, pointing out that I'd already deleted the article, as it hadn't been removed from the initial AFD page (think it was May 10), and I was clearing out the backlog. Please undelete if you really feel it would be necessary. Proto||type 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting, after reading about its relisting above, was not appropriate. Undeleted; please relist if you want to revisit the issue. +sj + 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. My comment on the AfD was "No good reasons for deletion have been advanced. While terribly dull, this is a perfectly encyclopedic list article." I don't think any more needs to be said. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Except possibly to inquire as to your definitions -- and their applicability to this article -- of "perfectly" and "encyclopedic". --Calton | Talk 07:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, reasonable admin judgment; potential relist. +sj + 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The AfD was strongly in favor of deletion, and the article is totally worthless anyway. WarpstarRider 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

12 May 2006

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (13th nomination))

These debeates were closed as keep by sockpuppets of User:Science3456 (the author of two of these pages). —Ruud 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. While these MfDs did end in a keep, I think that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (both created by a sockpuppet of User:Science3456) should be reconsidered in the light of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool. —Ruud 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the GNAA one per the obvious reasons, even if the closer voted multiple times (according to the suspected cat). The Chess one seems fine, one delete vote and many keeps from regulars (hasn't this one been discussed before?). /Funny is mostly the same. Relist Trillion and Billion Kotepho 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't meant to endorse the actual actions of the closer, just that they had the correct result. If someone wants to strike out the closures and replace them with their own that is fine by me, but I do not see a reason to revisit them (besides the poll ones). Kotepho 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• If the sockpuppetry can be confirmed, a ban is in order. If not, these discussion should never have been closed by users of such inexperience. Speedy-reopen the debates and allow a seasoned administrator to make the call. If the answer comes out the same, fine. But closing deletion discussion is not an appropriate role for a user on his/her first day of logged-in edits. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rossami is, of course, correct. Especially because this user has been implicated in sockpuppetry, he is no position to close debates even if they are obvious keeps (and overwhelming keeps are able to be closed by any user in good faith). However, I'd suggest that the outcome in the case of "Funny" and "Chess" is unassailably correct, and any administrator could ratify these closures easily. The close of GNAA, mandated by a de facto ruling of the administrators here and on WP:AN, is appropriate. Billion and Trillion should be Relisted (not reopened, as the debates are now aged, and suspect for puppetry anyway) for new consideration. Xoloz 15:57, 12 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.

• Aww Nigga - I merged what I could remember into Internet phenomenon (though the speedying was debatable, I won't press it) then redirected, but it would help to see what was there before. --Rory096 22:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 November 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 16}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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 or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

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

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)

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 [8] 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)

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)

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:) [9] ; [10] ; [11] (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 [12] 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)

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)

Oz categories

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)

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)

Amiga Virtual Machine

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amiga virtual machine

Ask for undelete an article about Amiga redirected to 68k, while it has only some marginal relationship with 68K. See Talk:Amiga virtual machine to read all my points why "to undelete" review this article. Here I will made only a light summary of it.

1. The Ask for deletion was inconsistent.
2. There is nothing related in the article about Amiga Virtual machines which justify the redirection to 68000.
3. ABOX has two code interpreters built in: the one for M68000 code, the second for PowerPC PPC603e.
4. Amiga Anywhere AVM for example has nothing related with 68000.
5. during voting the main reasons to delete article by its detractors is related to a certain ignorance about Amiga and its technical features. Amiga it still on the market and evolving.
6. Reasons for Deletion were mainly (as clearly shown into voting discussion) by people who demonstrated hatred versus Amiga platform.
7. Abuse: During votations for deletion/keep there were censorshipped the reasons why to keep the article. (see history of the vote discussion related entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_16)

Conclusions:
This facts, i.e. the substantial inconsistence of the Request for Deletion, the presence of evident flamebaits, an evident abuse of censorship, obviously keep prevent other readers to judge with equity.
Also the article couldn't be redirected on 68K page, because three of the AVM have nothing in common with Motorola 68000 except the fact they made use of bundled Code Interpreter of 68000 as a simple bonus.

• ABOX main internal interpreter engine has PPC code interpreter (68000 interpreter is secondary one)
• Amiga Anywhere has no 68000 emulation bonus at all.

I want also to point you all that Amiga Virtual Machine article itself is well written and documented, it was also being edited to match all wikipedia standards.
Here it is all about my points. This is why I strongly ask to you all moderators it will be undelete and restored at the moment of its last revision editing. Thank you in anticipation for your attention and patience.
With respect, --Raffaele Megabyte 13:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• The content has never been deleted. The AFD discussion was closed as "merge" - a flavor of "keep". Disputed mergers are discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. Please return to the Talk pages to reach consensus on whether the merger should be kept or reversed. In necessary, consider the Request for Comment process. A Deletion Review discussion is not suited to help you make this decision. Rossami (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• The content has never been merged. There is nothing about AVM in the [68k article]. Seems to me a deletion hidden by redirect.

To ask you some more clarifications on how to continue democratically fight to obtain that all the article will be re-issued... and not to play sort of "pass the buck" game that it was redirect->merge->delete->unrelated-etc... then, how could be the possible steps I can follow to obtain justice?

Sure I at this moment do not want to bother Request for Comment moderators, while the facts stated that the article is actually vanished.

Is this sort of bureaucratic (and kafkian) moebius-like loop-hole situation?????

Situation requires that someone of high level moderators should take the responsibility for any decision about this strange merge = delete.

Such a decision sholud be really a Solomon-like one, and not a Pilatus-like one such as: «I wash my hands» = i.e. «It is not of my business» which brings the results really not to take any decision at all.

Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The history is there, anything that should be merged can still be merged, and I still think that article itself made no sense because of the reasons I stated on the deletion page and elsewhere (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NFT for as the term "AVM" is concerned). LjL 19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• response. So, my dear mr. LjL about your objections of «WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NFT for as the term "AVM" is concerned» I think you have nothing to object if I ask to allow recreation if notability can be established. Do you have any objection?

To support my request I created a list of links into Talk:Amiga_virtual_machine (see paragraph 9), and I ask all readers and moderators (please) to check various notability of the related Amiga Virtual Machine attested terms in numerous sites.

Obviously also NPOV exists beacuse there are many non-amiga sites attesting it (even Slashdot.org and IBM).

Also WP:NOR WP:NFT are not relevant because we are talking about commercial products existing starting since 1998 up today, and there are plenty of primary and secondary sources; no school works, no neologisms at all! Amiga Virtual Machine is not a neologism, it is a common term to define a series of phenomena already present for many years and now emerging.

Sincerely--Raffaele Megabyte 03:17, 24 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)

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 [13]), 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 [14] 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)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, which was overwhelmingly in favour of deletion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

21 May 2006

Church of Reality

I want to hear countering viewpoints of the Church of Reality, after seeing bumper stickers in San Francisco. It looks like the page is permanently deleted, but no explanation has been given as to why. It is an athiestic organization: is the page being suppressed by political opponents? Please reinstate to allow open information exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.103.182 (talk • contribs)

• Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. It was then speedied a bunch of times when recreated. --W.marsh 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Without voting one way or the other yet, I'll answer: no, of course it's not being oppressed by political opponents. Repeat that too much and you'll just end up sounding like a bunch of paranoid kooks. Now, has anything changed since the AfD to make the Church of Reality more notable or give it more verifiable, published information? rspeer / yYYdsy 07:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Azn people in United States

User:Vegaswikian has been deleting the pages which link to the Asian American page under the assumption that "internet slang" is not covered under a reason for a redirect page, but I User:Dark Tichondrias believe the alternative spelling is covered in Wikipedia's redirect reasons. On Wikipedia:Redirect page the third reason for a redirect is for other spellings and punctuations. "Azn" or "AZN" are an alternative spelling for Asian. These alternative spellings are used on the internet, but the fact they are used on the internet has no bearing on their status of being an alternative spelling. --- Dark Tichondrias 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, and delete other implausible redirects created by the same user. - Mike Rosoft 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm another editor who's been going through and cleaning up the myriad of redirects you consider an alternative spelling, and I'm hard pressed to figure out how someone would type "Asain (Office of Management and Budget)" into the search box.  RasputinAXP  c 00:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - highly tenuous. Metamagician3000 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Kp dltd. LjL 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. LjL stole my line. · rodii · 02:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, but don't waste time on deleting other implausible redirects by the same user. His time would have been better spent creating articles with substance, but the presence of these redirects didn't, I think, hurt anyone. We shouldn't be wasting our time deleting harmless redirects. (If this discussion were about whether to perform the initial deletions or not, I would have voted Keep, I think...) --Lukobe 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Redirects for typos are fine, being lazy and not typing all letters is not. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Don't want to open the floodgates for other nonsensical internet-speak redirects. leet leg@l d00dz as a redirect to Supreme Court, anyone? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• You mean it wasn't already? ;)  RasputinAXP  c 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "Azn" is more than just an internet slang term. Our local television cable provider carries AZN television, an English language network for Asian viewers (mainly Filipino). However, the vast numbers of redirects being created is silly and verging on disruptive, considering how much space they take up in Recent Changes. No vote. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and chase down the dozens of others: as one of the mop-wielders who had to clear this lot out of CAT:CSD I can assure you that there were a huge number, all of which were pretty much nonsensical. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted at the risk of sounding eletist, somone who can't tell the difference between IM slang and an encyclopedia probably won't learn too much here anyway. Thatcher131 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Thatcher131, Andrew Lenahan, & Rasputin.--WilliamThweatt 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted An unencyclopedic and unnecessary term. Anybody who knows "AZN" knows Asian.--Folksong 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AlmightyLOL

Overturn This site has grown effectively in prominence over the internet subculture since it's conception in December 2005. I know alot of fucktards have been screwing with the page, but what if somebody comes to wikipedia and wants to know what almightyLOL is? Is wikipedia just going to say "sorry, bro, you're on your own with this one", or refer people to encyclopedia dramatica? All I'm asking for is to write a stub expalining what it is, slip a link in at the bottom of the page, then have it put on protected. Doesn't that make sense? WALKER--

• Endorse deletion, valid A7 speedy, even if it wasn't the ongoing AfD was a snowball delete, no new arguments presented. I remind its members again that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• By the way, this is a wiki. No article may be permanently protected. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Properly deleted pages that are repeatedly recreated may be but it shouldn't be commonly needed. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted without being able to see the deleted content but with the help of google searches and archive looks to compensate it looks like this is yet another fad that doesn't deserve an article and I agree with Samuel Blanning that it would be a snowball and quite possibly a speedy close AFD if it were to go there. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• comment I understand WP:NOT, but I also understand what it is, a source of information available to the public. If people need to know what almightyLOL is, then wikipedia should be their first source of information. If I were to go around posting an external link to almightylol from every other page, that would be advertising. But an article simply telling what it is should be allowable. WALKER 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  So you're arguing against Wikipedia:Verifiability then? If there are reliable sources talking about AlmightyLOL, then we might have something to write about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  To rephrase what GTBacchus said, Wikipedia is never the first source for anything. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources, that is, they are the third source after reliable journals, newspapers and other publications with suitable fact-checking standards. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  Well then, where's the source for the page on YTMND?

  Keep deleted. Good idea, let's delete YTMND and related junk. Where do you think the fucktards are coming from? · rodii · 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, YTMND references such sources as CNN and The Wall Street Journal, because it's a notable enough phenomenon that those publications decided it was worth a mention. Has AlmightyLOL received coverage in the national mainstream press? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and protection, this thing has been deleted three times in less than three months. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protection BTW: You're not going to win support by calling people "fucktards."--Folksong 20:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

List of video game collector and special editions

Overturn and Rename The majority of the calls for deletion at the original AFD debate found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game collector and special editions were made before the article was even complete 10% of its state at the time of deletion. All votes to keep the page however were made after most progress had been made. Originally then, the nomination was much more valid, but as the page took shape and it's purpose and scope were better defined, it became a very useful and focused resource for people to use. I DO however, suggest it is renamed to something like "List of NA video games with limited editions" to better call attention to what it covers. The list is not unmaintainable as some asserted, only a handful of games get such a release every year; and it is not indiscriminate when you put focus on and understand the "limited" aspect, and limit inclusion to games released in the NA market (as admittedly numerous Japan released games get limited editions). There are perhaps another dozen or two more games beyond what the list already covered. Suggestions that people should visit hundreds of individual games pages to see if a game has a special edition is ridiculously inefficient (and makes the assumption those pages even mention such a release); this puts everything on one page, with the added benefit of describing what made each limited edition special (unlike the beginning when it was merely a literal list of titles). If anything I learned not to put up a page until it is more or less done. Also I was insulted by the admin's insinuation I used multiple accounts on the AFD page to bias the discussion, if anything its proof there are people who value such information. Deusfaux 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also any comparisons to this being similiar to a list of special edition dvd movies is invalid as the total # of limited edition video games ever released would not equal even one year's worth of "special/limited" edition dvds (which sees nearly every title get such a release.) An easily maintainable list. Deusfaux 13:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Those arguing for deletion did not do so on the basis that the list was incomplete, so their rationales applied to the article as it stood at deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But then what basis DID they vote on?. When I said it was incomplete I didnt mean as to which titles it included, I meant incomplete as in zero formatting, and <10 titles (names only) all on the same line with no intro or discussion of what the page was attempting to do. If anything, they were based were largely based on the page's title then, as there was little to no article to vote on. How could they vote on the premise for the page when one couldnt even be communicated to them at the time they were viewing it? I would have nominated it for deletion myself. It was junk. However, it wasnt for long, at all. Deusfaux 14:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• You can easily see the basis they voted on if you view the AfD page. You can see their reasonings there. The overwhelming theme was that it was not an encyclopedic list (aka listcruft). Metros232 14:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• And at the time they made those comments, it was true. My issue is that the page was essentially a stub for what would become something substantially different later on, so they are invalid. On Deletion Review: "It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information)," Deusfaux 14:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Users weren't voting on the content of the article, rather the CONCEPT of the article. No matter what you did or put into it, the article would have still be deleted for being an unencyclopedic list. Metros232 15:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Again from above: "How could they vote on the premise for the page when one couldnt even be communicated to them at the time they were viewing it?" Where were they deriving what the concept was supposed to be? The title then? Ironic because I think it should be renamed anyways. Deusfaux 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure the majority of the grounds was listcruft. I agree. Nothing improper. Computerjoe's talk 14:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can anyone even view the page at this point? Just going by the AFD is not appropriate in regards to the reasons called for undeletion.Deusfaux 14:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Apart from the issue of whether early delete votes failed to take into account new evidence, all the reasons for undeletion were addressed in the AfD. Deletion review is not a rematch, it is for reviewing whether process was followed; therefore the AfD and its outcome is the important thing to be considered, not the content of the article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So since the article is vastly different from what was laregly voted on to be deleted, I shouldnt be asking for a review into the process that got it deleted; I should just remake the page and see if people call for it to be deleted then? Deusfaux 15:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If a consensus emerges here that the outcome would have been different if new evidence was considered, only then may the article will be restored and relisted on AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • If indeed your revised version now properly addresses the objections raised in the article's AfD, irrespective of the disposition of deletion review, it would be appropriate for you to recreate the article, although the article would be deleted, perhaps speedily, were it to be exorbitantly similar to the version for which an AfD was already closed. Sam's point apropos of new evidence is, to be sure, correct; if the changes, though, aren't to introduce new evidence as, for example, to notability, but, instead, to reformulate the page such that it no longer is an unencyclopedic list (per WP:NOT), sometimes a new article should simply be created (although I concur in Metros' comment inasmuch as I can't conceive of any version of the list/article that would comport with WP:NOT). The deletion of an article on a given subject does not preclude its recreation (see, e.g., in the case of an article about The Beatles that was speedied as nonsense or AfDed as being unencyclopedic, the deletion of a previous article would not prohibit the creation of an article consistent with Wikipedia policy, given that the subject would surely be notable); it does, though, prohibit recreation of an article substantially similar to that which was deleted (absent new evidence [either presented at DRV or introduced into a new article]). Joe 19:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. This is a sticky situation. It appears that most of the delete votes were indeed based on a proto-version of the article, one which did not have the valuable annotation which the most recent version (as per my recollection) did. As per WP:LIST, an annotated list is a good candidate for keeping rather than making into a category. I don't see anything in WP:NOT that applies to this article. Claims of listcruft are also dubious: the list is of broad interest, the list is not indiscriminate, the content is verifiable, the concept is notable, the list is of sufficient length, the list is maintainable, the list is annotated, and the list is encyclopedic. The important thing is that many of the listcruft criteria were indeed met by the initial version, but were (or may have been) eliminated by the deleted version. That deleted version deserves a second chance, ideally with "Delete" voters providing a more detailed explanation than just "listcruft" (per WP:LC, "listcruft" alone is not by itself sufficient reason for deletion). Powers 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: the list has been replaced with a category (currently nominated for renaming) which in the circumstances is actually more useful. My usual objection to converting a list to a category is that the latter cannot include placeholders for items not currently covered by an article; however there should be nothing in this "list" which does not already have an article and therefore the category is eminently suitable. I was saddened both by the excessive references to listcruft in the AFD discussion, verging on incivility, and by the indications of claimed ownership being displayed by the originator who is now contesting the suggested renaming of the category and threatening to recreate the list. HTH HAND �Phil | Talk 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the category is insufficient as a replacement because it is the annotation present in the list that makes it encyclopedic. That annotation does not exist in the category. Powers 14:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A catergory would likely have links to pages that do not exist, and makes assumptions various game articles mention an L.E. and then makes the assumption those notes describe what the L.E. included or what made it special - all of which is not an issue with the list. BTW, I dont think the page should be renamed because I think it should be deleted altogether for reasons following, also I never "threatened" to remake this list - I asked in this very discussion if that would be appropriate. Deusfaux 08:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking over the catergoy page, a review of the first 10 entries indicate 5 of the linked articles do NOT mention any L.E. in any form (unverifiable), and 3 do not have a L.E. (as was defined to be discriminate) anyways. (they refer to marketing applied "special" editions which are merely re-releases and in no way limited) The page is a joke to wikipedia standards, and people would be far better served by a list with annotation, like the one in review. Deusfaux 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per Powers. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

20 May 2006

WWE Divas Do New York

This articles AfD was closed as no consensus despite a clear mathematical consensus being present. In addition the primary reason given to keep was a comparison to other non-notable subjects that currently have articles (Pokémon test) while the primary reason given for deletion was a lack of reliable sources to support the article. Jester 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Relucant endorse closure. I would certainly have voted to delete if I'd come across this useless substub. However, at the risk of attracting Fuddlemark's wrath again, a 65-70% majority for deletion generally puts the closing within admin discretion - here there was a 66% majority, and with no pressing WP:V concerns or similar, this was a valid 'no consensus' close. Relist it in a week or two if it hasn't been expanded, and upon closing the admin should discount all "keep and expand" 'votes'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Six to two, and the only argument to keep was that other such articles existed. The obvious reply is that those articles ought to torched also. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the precendent of other such articles existing is a very strong argument for keep, IMO.  Grue  14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - I would probably have voted to delete if I'd noticed this, but that is not the issue. Closure was within legitimate admin. discretion. Given circumstances, closure should not prejudice a further AfD. Metamagician3000 15:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but slap a merge tag on there. --Rory096 16:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure This was a reasonable choice within admin discretion. I don't think the subject is of great importance, but it is a DVD released by a major entertainment company, so maintaining the stub is neither absurd nor offensive to policy. Xoloz 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If I were to vote in this AfD, I would have done delete as well, but in this case, it's a 2:1 ratio for delete to non-delete, which is insufficient to delete an article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• It preocuppies me the amount of editors who have said here that they would have "voted delete" on it, so a relist is not a bad idea. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a No consensus vote implies that the article can be re-AfDed relatively soon without having cries of a bad-faith nomination. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but at the same time, some users see a no-consensus close as something which preludes nomination of an article for at least six months. I was thinking more of an immediate relist. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Then those users are wrong. :-) I have no objections to a relisting, but that doesn't get in the way of the no consensus closure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse closure I'm inclined to think I'd have closed as delete, but my lack of certainty likely means that no consensus was the appropriate close; I do believe that a relisting likely would lead to a clearer consensus (namely, to delete), and so I concur in Deathphoenix's observation that a relisting in the not-too-distant future wouldn't be inappropriate. Joe 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure although I too would have voted delete. Re-list and notify me when you do. -M^ask 06:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• In a case like this, where little time has passed and it's mostly just "I missed it" I think that re-opening is the best option. It avoids the scarlet letter of a re-list as well as preserving the opinions of those who've already participated. I'll ask MD if he feels like doing so. In the event that he does not want to re-open, I'll endorse the closure. - brenneman ^{L} 14:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

19 May 2006

Brooks Kubik

I believe that the deletion of the article on Brooks Kubik was not in line with the usual Wikipedia policies. The original AfD nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Kubik) claims that the page was "almost certainly a self-authored page". However, there were multiple contributors to the page, and there was no evidence to suggest that Kubik himself was one of the contributors. The nomination also claims lack of notability. Kubik has written a book called Dinosaur Training, available from many sources on the net (and listed on Amazon, though they no longer have it in stock), and has written articles in several magazines on weight training - Hardgainer, Iron Master, Milo, and his own newsletter, Dinosaur Files. Wikipedia:Notability (people) gives the following as a guideline for living people:

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more

I don't have exact figures on the circulation of his book or the magazines mentioned above, but I believe he qualifies as notable on this basis. I claim that the previous AfD was not made in good faith, and propose that the article be reinstated. Dsreyn 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and Relist so we can get this deleted once and for all – forever. --Ezeu 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - some claim to notability and the AfD was very unsatisfactory with only three ... ahem ... "votes". Metamagician3000 01:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, yeah it looks like an insufficient amount of consensus to delete, so I would have slapped a relist to get more votes as well. Though I find a "speedy keep" vote by Monicasdude to be incorrect (it is not bad faith to put a deprodded article on AfD, it is actually proper policy to do so), it still goes down to keep, so there's insufficient consensus to delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:06, 20 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)

15 May 2006

Structures of the GLA

It is well settled that one does not own a deletion discussion/nomination any more than he/she might own the article about which a discussion is held; indeed, WP:SK makes plain that an AfD may be closed as a speedy keep upon the withdrawal of the nomination only if no other valid delete "votes" have been cast. Notwithstanding this, this article’s AfD was closed after a full week’s discussion as nomination withdrawn; keep without prejudice to any further nomination by any party one month after closure (the latter proviso likely shouldn’t be included, in view our otherwise expressed general disfavoring of rapidly repeated AfD noms, but I’ll not quibble over that). Plainly, many editors argued for deletion, and several argued as well for keep; in view of certain keep justifications, the original nominator agreed with a principal editor of the article to withdraw the nomination in order that the article might be cleaned up. At least four editors, though, made clear that, in view of WP:NOT and WP:OR, they could not see any prospective article that would be appropriate and thus advocated for delete irrespective of revisions. I think delete might be a valid close (and I'd likely, were I the closing admin, interpret the debate as militating for deletion), but I understand that one may perceive no consensus from the debate. In any case, nomination withdrawn was not, in this case, a valid close, and so I recommend that the closure be overturned and either that the discussion be closed as no consensus, or, preferably, in view of some editors’ being confused over nomination withdrawal, relisted. Joe 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete clear consensus to delete, article not encyclopedic (wikipedia is not a game guide). --InShaneee 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Discussion at AFD seems to have generated momentum to change the article to a form more acceptable. Give it a chance, let's not rush where we do not need to. I certainly don't see enough consensus to say delete, and whether the close should be the way it was or should have been no consensus is not worth arguing about since the ultimate result is the same. Martinp 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No consensus and nomination withdrawn likely produce the same result in practice, but it is important to note that AfDs such as this should not be closed simply because the nominator asks that the nomination be withdrawn; the distinction is, from a policy perspective, significant. Joe 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Arguments per policy were strongly in favour of deletion, arguments for keep mostly amount to arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. It's not a vote, etc. - brenneman^{L} 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per InShaneee. At the very least, they need to be merged into one or at the most three articles. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per nom, article went through more than a week's of AfD discussion with the consensus (discounting socks, etc) definitely at delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per JzG. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the person who closed the AfD, I was going to simply abide by the decision, and accept it if the community decided my closure was mistaken. However, it's been suggested to me that it might be helpful if I comment. My reasoning was along the lines of Martinp above. We had a dynamic situation with some prospect emerging of the article being rewritten, with a deadline on that process, and an agreement announced between the article's main critic - the nominator - and someone closely involved in writing it. The nominator was making slightly ambiguous noises about withdrawing the nomination, and there was already some discussion on the article's talk page between those people about how to tackle the task. The problems with the article didn't seem to be something necessarily fundamental. Given the other strong views for delete, my thought was to give this a chance but with a clear statement that it was without prejudice, so no one could cite that the article had survived an AfD and that a further AfD in only a month was abusive or whatever. People who voted delete didn't seem to me to be especially inconvenienced by this - the balance of convenience seemed the other way. There was also some other support for keep, admittedly not all that cogent in itself. I may have made a mistake in closing as nomination withdrawn, in which case my humble apologies, although I believe I have seen other AfDs closed in that way even though there were other votes before the purported withdrawal. If that practice is considered to be against policy, that's fine; I'd appreciate that clarification. I still think the result obtained was a fair one in the rather unusual circumstances, but I'll happily accept whatever is decided here. Metamagician3000 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Imposing a one-month ban on anyone representing that article for AFD is a dangerous precedent, IMO. I see no problem whatsoever with you deciding on a speedy keep considering the special circumstances, but the one month ban seems dangerous. A speedy keep because of a withdraw is essentially saying, "it never happened". BigDT 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Point of clarification for whatever it's worth. As I saw it the effect of my statement was the opposite: to ensure that a new AfD brought after only one month would not be prejudiced by the fact that there had been a recent AfD. Without that statement, there was a danger that someone would resist the next AfD by saying, "Survived an AfD only a few weeks ago." The statement protected people who would want to vote to delete if the article could not be rewritten in that timeframe into something more encylopedic. Metamagician3000 10:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Ok, I see what you are saying now. Thank you for explaining it. BigDT 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist The flat count here is 25d/9k = 73% del. Given that Metamagician considered the substantive developments in the article's status, including a compromise between the nominator and creator, I cannot call his closure wrong on the result. Unfortunately, Joe is quite correct that the wording of his closure was process-defective; friends above also make clear that there is heavy sentiment in favor of deletion. In this circumstance, begin debate afresh, with the compromise on the table from the beginning, and see if the debate takes a different course. Xoloz 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(Have already voted above). This makes sense; clearly there is a mishmash of opinions here and lack of clarity. So relist it now as opposed to in a month. Martinp 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Before I comment on this I want to make this clear: I am the creator of the page and it was I that originaly notified six other users as to the pages AFD. In my opinion its already been settled that the page can not remain on wikipedia in its current form, which is why I agreed to a one month amnesty to see whether I could reorganize the page in to something more befitting wikipedia. In four weeks, if there is no improvement in the article then it will be mass merged with the other structure pages to fom one large page or deleted; there will be no acceptions. Given this there is no reason to relist, nor is there any reason to overturn and delete. TomStar81 05:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Suggest Voluntary Move to Userspace - the article obviously doesn't belong on WP as is. WP is not a random collection of whatever. Move it to userspace and work out the kinks. Then bring it back to represent. BigDT 05:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as per the above. WP:NOR is non-negotiable. Proto||type 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strange as it may seem for me to be saying this, we must not be slaved to process if a reasonable approach seems to be worked out among all the interested parties. Process is our guide, not our master. Reasonable outcomes are more important than strict process adherence. Despite the large number of people suggesting delete, I'd instead suggest that some time be given to see if this article can be improved. If that really doesn't seem workable for whatever reason, userify the article text so that the main proponent of the rewrite can work on it further and reintroduce it to articlespace once ready. I see what MM3K meant about non predjudice though I also see why it may have been confusingly worded. I suggest that normally it's reasonable that an article not be subjected to continuous AfD after it survives, and that a month or more is a reasonable amount of time to wait between suggesting it for AfD again. But in this case what MM3K was trying to say was that this wasn't a normal close and that it should be eligible for AfD without people using "but it just was" as a defense. Agree the result was fair and endorse closure with a provisional keep result. ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree w/r/to process; I think the point others are making (though I'm not certain I agree entirely) is that, whatever time may be devoted to the rewriting of the article, an article apropos of this subject will never be encyclopedic, in view of WP:OR and WP:NOT (or some combination thereof). Whether that debate actually belongs at DRV is a different discussion (though I'm inclined to think it does)... Joe 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per InShaneee. Naconkantari 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. I agree with Xoloz here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• After thinking this over for the past few days, endorse outcome (if not the precise wording) - article has been kept with no prejudice against (or as I would say "without prejudice to") a further AfD at an early date. I still think this was the commonsense result in the circumstances. Metamagician3000 04:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Prhizzm

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prhizzm

I was somewhat annoyed to come back from a vacation to find this article, which I started, deleted. It would have been nice if the AfD was postponed until I returned, but I suppose I couldn't expect that the nominator check my user or talk pages to see my vacation notice. That said, I feel that my absence affected the outcome of the AfD unfavourably, and also that the AfD had too few participants to be able to show a consensus. In addition, I feel that Prhizzm does meet the requirements in WP:MUSIC, as follows:

I feel Prhizzm meets the two release requirement. Not only does he have two releases on a very notable independent electronic label, he also has one on a second label which is pretty notable in itself. This is in addition to his hippocamp.net release, which may not fit the bill, but which is also somewhat notable. And I know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but Prhizzm does have a full-length album scheduled for release. The term "album" in the requirements is contentious, as there are many EPs which could qualify but which are called EPs anyway. Prhizzm's are quite substantial. In addition, it should be noted that in the electronic music world, EPs are very common, to the point that some artists release primarily, or even exclusively, in that format.

I don't know where one would find information about being "placed in rotation," or even what that really means (does a few plays equal being in rotation?) but Prhizzm's music has been featured on three separate BBC 1 programs (see the bottom of this page), as well as in other venues. BBC 1 is pretty big--I think this should qualify him.

As for media attention, Prhizzm has had his fair share, notably in Eye Weekly a hugely popular entertainment weekly available all over the Greater Toronto Area (see here), and perhaps elsewhere in Ontario.

Also, just a final note, in case there was any possibility of incorrect Google checks being undertaken, the name is Prhizzm, not Phrizzm--this is a common mistake with regards to the name. The former gets many results (over 26,000), the latter, not nearly as many.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, having read around it. As the article says "his first full-length release is expected in early 2007" ; thus far his releases are EPs, he has no Allmusic entry, he has a small amount of airplay (how many never-heard-of-since bands were played by John Peel? I bet there were a load!). I'd say that a full-length release is the bare minimum for notability. I'm sure he'll get there (unless he drops the ball), but right now I don't see how he passes WP:NMG. Assuming the best possible faith on the part of the creator, this is functionally indistinguishable form the many other up-and-coming-but-not-there-yet acts which we see all the time. Sorry. Just zis Guy you know? 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and Relist at AFD since substantial new information is available. JoshuaZ 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist at AfD per JoshuaZ. The consensus at AfD was hardly strong (I am inclined to discount the speedy delete vote, since the commenter didn't grasp what "claim to notability" means.) Against this minimal debate, we have a good-faith article creator unaware of the first debate, and new information of media coverage: each of these is an independent ground for relisting under DRV guidelines. This article deserves a new hearing, hopefully with more community input this time. Xoloz 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Full disclosure: I voted to keep on the first AfD. Though whether Prhizzm passes the exact letter of WP:MUSIC is debatable, I think he does pass the spirit of what WP:MUSIC is supposed to be about (essentially, protecting us from high-school garage bands and the like). This is a notable artist with two releases on a notable label. In the vinyl days, the distinction between an EP and an LP was an important one--in the era of CD, MP3, and iTunes, the distinction is much less important. See the article Extended play for some examples of just how blurry the line between album and EP can get. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete/relist at AfD per JoshuaZ and Xoloz. This likely should have been relisted in any case; I don't know that one could find a consensus in the minimal debate that occurred.I don't know that I'd have been able to find a consensus in the minimal debate that occured. (I refactored this lest one should think me to be questioning the closer's judgment on the whole; I ought to have made clear that I didn't think the closure altogether unreasonable, even as I think it to have been wrong.) Joe 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, don't relist, and admit we were wrong. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist given weak AfD consensus. --Ezeu 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. With improvement, it will be able to meet the independent coverage criterion. --Rob 08:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist: per Xoloz and JoshuaZ --David.Mestel 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - the closing admin made a reasonable call on the evidence available at the time, but the circumstances suggest this be given another run. Metamagician3000 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist per Xoloz and JoshuaZ, we made a mistake here. Silensor 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Ardenn 03:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist Borderline
• Endorse deletion per JzG. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this please it should be improved instead Yuckfoo 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

List of proper nouns containing a bang

AfD closed as "No consensus so keep"; 13 votes to delete (including the nomination), 4 to keep (including article author). I know AfD isn't a vote, but this looked like a clear delete to me, so I was surprised by the closing. I'd be interested in hearing the closer's reasoning. · rodii · 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was also surprised by outcome (even though I voted keep), but I don't think this article harms anyone, so it was the right decision.  Grue  12:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear the closer's reasoning as well - I left a message on Tawker's talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Relist (I would say "overturn" but, since I didn't get a chance to "vote" in the original AfD, I won't use this forum to "vote"). This seems like a clear "delete" to me and, pending an explanation from the closing admin, it appears there was consensus to delete.--WilliamThweatt 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn there was definately a consensus to delete here. Not sure how the admin arrived at that descision. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn / Delete - if there is any real reason for this, it could always be made into a category. 13-4 is a consensus and the closing admin did not make any note of sockpuppetry or anything else that would invalidate the count, thus, it should be deleted. BigDT 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - non notable. We could make list of proper/common/whatever nouns containing any letter or punctuaction mark, but that's not an encyclopedia topic IMHO (more like an idea for a better search engine perhaps). Also, I agree that 13/4 is consensus. LjL 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse decision, AFD came to a very reasonable outcome. This is a perfectly reasonable article and I can imagine it being quite useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please present a plausible hypothetical situation in which it would be useful? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Branding research, e.g. tracking companies or films that employ an exclamation point vs. ones that don't. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• No vote yet... I'd like to hear User:Tawker's reasoning first. This could conceivably fall in the range of reasonable sysop discretion, but I'd really like to hear it explained. It was highly inappropriate to close it this way without putting an explanation in the close itself. The reasoning behind some of the "keeps" seems dubious ("It is an exciting look into the history of entertainment, which is not possible to find using Wikipedia's search engine"), and the reasoning behind some of the "deletes" seems sound... particularly "First write an encyclopedic article on the use of exclamation marks in proper names, of course adhering to WP:V, WP:RS, and most importantly WP:N. Then create the list and link to that article at the header." When I look at the discussion I see: a vote clearly exceeding the 2/3 rule of thumb; no obvious voting irregularities; and no rationales on either side that are so excessively inappropriate as to warrant anything beyond a simple count. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Couldn't this be better served by a category, anyhow? As the article stands, it's just unwieldy and impractical to maintain. (Oh, and the original AfD closing looks...odd. But I'm basing my opinion on the article as it stands.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A category would be a poor choice as from the perspective of someone reading the article like Oklahoma!, this will likely be viewed as clutter. Anyone looking for the information in this list will probably arrive either from Google or from exclamation point, and anyone else will probably regard it as fairly trivial. Such information as this page contains is useful, so it's worth keeping, but we should keep it on its own page as its likely audience is relatively small. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist I agree with Dpbsmith that it is a major flaw of policy and process to render this kind of decision without an extensive explanation: quite frankly, though I'd like to hear what Tawker has to say, I think too late for him now to offer a rationalization for the close. At the same time, I appreciate that this result is not terribly inappropriate; we have a 75% deletion consensus, which could default to "no consensus/keep" given complicating circumstances. Mr. Parham raises a good possible use for the list. When a closure is this flawed, but the article is neither clearly meritorious, nor clearly meritless, the solution is to throw out the closure, and restart the process. Xoloz 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist I was altogether prepared to advocate for overturn and delete, but I suppose I am persuaded by Xoloz that the closure can be understood as not wholly baseless (even as this may not be Xoloz's main point), and that, because neither the keeps nor the deletes make a prima facie case, we ought to relist. Joe 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn previous close, close relist according to consensus, whichever, just delete. "Useless" is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. It's a list - there's no question of whether the nouns actually have bangs in them or not, or whether saying they have a bang is neutral, it's just... useless. That's all AfD can say about lists most of the time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• relist this please it can be used for branding research like suggested Yuckfoo 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My Rationale

I'm not going to go into a vote by vote rationale (unless someone wants me to) but in short I put the no consensus so keep as it was very grey on the border of deletion, it is not "votes" per say in AfD, its more what people have to say. In short, most of the deletes were leaning on "useless" or "cruft" whereas the keeps were along the "useful until search engine is improved" and or starting point. Wikipedia is not paper, the costs of keeping such a list are partically nil and seeing how it was very grey on consensus and seeing a pretty valid keep reason I thought it would be best to error on the side of caution and keep. I am not objected to a relist / review by another admin, thats just how I saw it -- Tawker 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking another look at the discussion above I've relisted -- Tawker 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And further to this, after relisting, I've deleted the article, as the consensus was now heavily towards delete (and I'm just going through the whatlinkshere). Proto||type 09:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete. Several of us had suggested a relist. If we closed the DRV now (after these out-of-process moves), it would deserve a relist. Xoloz 17:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, pointing out that I'd already deleted the article, as it hadn't been removed from the initial AFD page (think it was May 10), and I was clearing out the backlog. Please undelete if you really feel it would be necessary. Proto||type 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting, after reading about its relisting above, was not appropriate. Undeleted; please relist if you want to revisit the issue. +sj + 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. My comment on the AfD was "No good reasons for deletion have been advanced. While terribly dull, this is a perfectly encyclopedic list article." I don't think any more needs to be said. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Except possibly to inquire as to your definitions -- and their applicability to this article -- of "perfectly" and "encyclopedic". --Calton | Talk 07:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, reasonable admin judgment; potential relist. +sj + 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The AfD was strongly in favor of deletion, and the article is totally worthless anyway. WarpstarRider 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

12 May 2006

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (13th nomination))

These debeates were closed as keep by sockpuppets of User:Science3456 (the author of two of these pages). —Ruud 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. While these MfDs did end in a keep, I think that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Billion pool and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trillion pool (both created by a sockpuppet of User:Science3456) should be reconsidered in the light of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool. —Ruud 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the GNAA one per the obvious reasons, even if the closer voted multiple times (according to the suspected cat). The Chess one seems fine, one delete vote and many keeps from regulars (hasn't this one been discussed before?). /Funny is mostly the same. Relist Trillion and Billion Kotepho 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't meant to endorse the actual actions of the closer, just that they had the correct result. If someone wants to strike out the closures and replace them with their own that is fine by me, but I do not see a reason to revisit them (besides the poll ones). Kotepho 16:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• If the sockpuppetry can be confirmed, a ban is in order. If not, these discussion should never have been closed by users of such inexperience. Speedy-reopen the debates and allow a seasoned administrator to make the call. If the answer comes out the same, fine. But closing deletion discussion is not an appropriate role for a user on his/her first day of logged-in edits. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rossami is, of course, correct. Especially because this user has been implicated in sockpuppetry, he is no position to close debates even if they are obvious keeps (and overwhelming keeps are able to be closed by any user in good faith). However, I'd suggest that the outcome in the case of "Funny" and "Chess" is unassailably correct, and any administrator could ratify these closures easily. The close of GNAA, mandated by a de facto ruling of the administrators here and on WP:AN, is appropriate. Billion and Trillion should be Relisted (not reopened, as the debates are now aged, and suspect for puppetry anyway) for new consideration. Xoloz 15:57, 12 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)