Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

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

Content review

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

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

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

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

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 November 17}}</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 17}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 17|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)

1 May 2006

Note: 30 April 2006 was empty

Scott Thayer

Article was brought to AfD with the argument that it was NN vanity. Discussion went along, User:W.marsh brought out links showing that he met WP:BIO in at least one area, and, by my count, two. Delete votes continued after W.marsh's assertion of notability with the same arguments as the nom, suggesting that policy was ignored by voters. The decision was question at the deleting admin's talk page [1], where he simply went with a straight vote assuming that the delete votes took into consideration the new information while reaching a consensus. I do not consider that User:Titoxd worked out of process or made a bad faith close, but I do feel an incorrect decision was made.

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

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

• Keep Deleted as written, but without prejudice against possible re-creation if he truly is notable. The article at the time of the deletion was two short sentences and a link to his personal website. The article was written by a user named Robothayer (note thayer in name), whose only contributions were to this article, making this almost certainly vanity. I'd suggest that having two lengthly debates about this two-line wonder would not be useful to Wikipedia in general. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per above. Valid decision per policy and per process. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Assuming good faith, I agree with Rossami that no evidence firmly suggest editors ignored W. Marsh's evidence, only that they chose to disagree with it. One reason this may be so is provided by Starblind: whatever one's stance on the WP:BIO, the concerns of WP:AUTO were also relevant, and may have carried more weight in editor's mind. Valid and conclusive AfD, closed without flaw in process. Xoloz 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence to suggest that WP:AUTO was weighed in the context of the debate, however, nor is WP:AUTO de facto a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted but allow re-creation. If he's notable, someone will write him an article. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The dudes hitting #1 on Yahoo and #2 on Google.--TheMadTim 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ifdef

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

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

-- Omniplex 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Futuristic Sex Robotz

The full debate can be read here.

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

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

• '"Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."'
  • One of their songs based on WoW is now slated to be on "first ever Nerdcore Compilation CD."[[2]]
  • The compilation is mentioned on "the official website for the Rec.Music.Hip-Hop Usenet newsgroup". Obviously, this is a notable and verifiable source, not to mention that it is a site dedicated mostly to mainstream hip-hop. I think if it warrants mention on there it should have a WP article.
• '"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre."'
  • The group has released 15 songs on their first full-length release and recently released one single based on the soon to be released movie and current internet phenomenon Snakes on a Plane. They even have entered the single in a contest on [[3]] to get the song included in the Snakes on a Plane soundtrack.[[4]] The song currently has 750 votes. Most songs have fewer than 100 votes with a few songs recieving 200-300 votes.
• Also, one of FCYTravis' arguments for deletion is that it has only "344 total Google hits" is irrelevant because it now gets [35,100 total hits]. I think a gain of 34756 hits in a little under 2 months is astonishing.

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

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

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

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

29 April 2006

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

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

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

Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 April 2006

The Amazing Racist

The Amazing Racist page was deleted, on the grounds, as far as I understand it, that the Amazing Racist is a non-notable person. The Deletion Talk bit is here : [5]A Google search for "Amazing Racist", quotes included, brings up 58,800 results, Yahoo about 27,800. This page [6] has had 83650 views. I've never seen the original article, but I've created a version of how I think it should look on my user page here : User:TheMadTim. The guy is a lot more notable than some of the entries here on Wikipedia. --TheMadTim 11:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

3rd go : OK. This article fulfills the criteria for inclusion thusly: This series of sketches has been included on two commercially released DVDs, produced by the National Lampoons. The DVDs are available through mainstream distributors including Amazon [7] [8] There is no set wiki policies governing the inclusion of comedy sketch routines that I am aware of. The article can easily be made in accordance with WP:V. The fact that these sketches are commercially available would normally be accepted as sufficient evidence of noteability. To borrow from WP:NMG, "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" and "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" would all point towards this sketch having the requisite degree of noteability. WP:BIO states that "Notability can be determined by: A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. As this sketch is primarily an established commercial vehicle for a comedian and his publishers to make money, this would indicate that they are not doing this for fun, it is a profitable business which relies upon it's fan base. The movies are listed on imdb here : [9] and [10]. Imdb is listed on [11] as one way of showing noteability of a subject. The comedian who performs these sketches is well known as a live performer at Comedy Store. The subject satisfies WP:V and more than satisfies WP:GT. [12] states : An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). A look at the talk page of Amazing Racist shows a number of people visiting wikipedia looking for this information, but being unable to find it. Furthrmore, the same article states "If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: 1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance". --TheMadTim 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

• For your info, it was not deleted because "it offended someone" but because it fails to establish any encyclopaedic notability, as a single sketch by a single comedian. If you want to know the kind of sketch considered independently notable, see Dead Parrot. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Err dude, isn't that sketch only in there because Monty Python sketches have their own category? It's not in wikipedia 'independently', it's in because of it's authors.--TheMadTim 11:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not here to serve as a credible source, it must be based on credible sources. See WP:NOR. Also see WP:AGF, no-one is "lying through their teeth". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

26 April 2006

Gurunath

wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurunath

I think the decision to keep was incorrect. Firstly there were 3 votes (including NOM) to delete, and 4 votes to keep. However, the 4th keep vote was put in by a confirmed sockpuppet of another voter, and it was put in 8 days after the nomination, while the AfD was supposed to end after 5 days. So technically it was a stalemate vote. Also, this article attracts little to no interest - nobody voted on this issue except users that were directly involved with the article or friends thereof. Keeping an article on an Indian name like Gurunath is like keeping an article on a Western name like Horace. It doesn't make any sense unless it's directed at someone in particular. John has 2 billion hits on google - google hits don't tell you anything about significance in relation to a name. I think that it's a strange move to keep this article on wikipedia. What is the article going to say? "Gurunath is a given name in India."?? Hamsacharya dan 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep kept Fact is, there are disambiguation pages for both John and Horace, though the latter links first to the Roman poet. Disambiguation pages for common names are a common WP practice; Turnstep's closure was in keeping with this trend, as well as reflecting the reality of an evenly split opinion. However heavily the page needs to be edited, the closure has merit and should not be reversed. Xoloz 02:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure While it would have been a stalemate vote sans the sock, that only would end up with a no consensus (which I think should have been the result regardless). And in the case of no consensus, the article should default to keep, lacking a clearly noted violation of Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Darquis
• Endorse closure/keep kept. Even if the votes were a tie, no consensus = keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Darquis and Xaosflux. --David.Mestel 05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Darquis and Xaosflux. --CTSWyneken 13:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. Thought article was quite informative, and didn't break any policies. Stephen B Streater 13:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Without the sockpuppet it would be no-consensus, and no consenus means we default to keep. JoshuaZ 22:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Avillia/CVU_Politics

In a current RfC, I am contesting the first deletion of the page as administrative abuse. A administrator who read the RfC restored the page until a consensus was gained on RfC. It was deleted again by the friend of the subject of the RfC, and I recreated it per recommendations from people including the restoring administrator. Tawker, the administrator who first deleted it, has subsequently deleted it once again and protected it. Until there is a consensus at RfC (Hopefully one not made up by friends of the accused, cough), I'm requesting the page is reinstated. If the RfC continued along it's current path and no one dissents, then delete at will. --Avillia_{(RfC vs CVU) 01:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

• The page was restored by an admin mistakenly; see the relevant discussion on the administrator's incidents noticeboard, where he states "Gah, I've screwed up now. I did it on the advice of another user, reactionarily, before looking at all the facts. Now that I see there was lengthy discussion on it (he did not tell me this) I feel like a total douche. :(". Since the page was deleted as a violation of users' privacy, channel policy, common etiquette, and copyright laws, it would make more sense to keep it deleted until the request for comment can decide either way. Note, also, that the relevant request for comment is decidely against publicly posting private IRC logs thus far. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that so far, the only people who have weighted in are decidedly Pro-CVU or members of CVU theirselves. Note also that the channel policy was just created to stop me from discussion. Note that the copyright law has a nice section for 'fair use', if one could even argue as to the copyright ownership. Also, note that common etiquette seems like a oxymoron when I had a page 'violating the privacy' of users in a page directed at the same, just to be targetted for extensive abuse by the magical cabal. --Avillia (RfC vs CVU) 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm anti-cvu, ant not a member of it. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. As Pathoschild says above, it's a "violation of users' privacy, channel policy, common etiquette, and copyright laws". Note that I have no "association" with the CVU whatsoever aside from knowing of it's existance, nor do I hold virtually any opinion on the group either way.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment could someone describe the page, as it is impossible to comment on this without knowing content. Were they of a public channel? Which? Private messages? Which RFC? I'm going to guess the one linked in her sig. How do they pertain to that RFC? Claiming copyright on irc logs seems spurious at best as it depends on what country, etc. Was this page created and posted before the rule was added on 04:50, 25 April 2006? Kotepho 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The logs were taken from #vandalism-en-wp on Freenode, which requires confirmation to join. The channel policy did not explicitly prohibit public logging for the same reason it doesn't explicitly prohibit stalking, warez, or posting personal information— it was considered so obvious that it need not be stated. To confirm this popular opinion, see comments from uninvolved users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TawkerPathosEssjay, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IRC_logs_deletion_and_wheel_waring, and in this discussion, as well as text on m:IRC channels and Freenode's channel guidelines. It has since been modified to explicitly state this obvious detail. If you wish, I see no problem restoring the page without the logs for this discussion; there is plenty of non-log content. // [admin] Pathoschild(^talk/_map) 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. It is not an 'official' wikipedia channel though right? I can see how someone might not know about the policy or might not think it applies. Since it was a private channel, I will agree that it is against "common etiquette" to repost logs without permission, but the instances I saw were not particularly egregious. Still I am not sure why someone had to delete the page. Would not most people's concerns be dealt with by editing them out and anyone else's by deleting them from history? Deleting the page outright seems rather rash. Kotepho 05:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, keep deleted, delete again if necessary In at least some jurisdictions, it's illegal on privacy grounds to even make chat logs, much less publish them [13]. I posted to WT:CSD suggesting that privacy vios (in general) be included on the list of speedy deletion criteria--it's pretty obvious, but it's not listed explicitly at the moment. Per Pathoschild/s, restoring some version with no logs should be ok. Note: I'm not associated with CVU. Phr 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just restored the page without the private logs, since it is the posting of private logs that is at issue and not the page itself. See User:Avillia/CVU_Politics. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted(edit conflict with Pathos' announcement) per Phr and Pathoschild, and, no, I'm not involved with CVU either. If someone wants it restored without the logs, that seems ok. JoshuaZ 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore: the full chat logs are no longer on the page, so there is obviously nothing wrong with it now. --David.Mestel 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - page is now up, so is it really a matter of "restoring"? Anyhow, undelete conditionally, that the logs stayy off the page. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:36 UTC (2006-04-27)
• Allow to keep undeleted conditionally as long as the logs are gone (preferably the diffs deleted so that way only admins can see them) and he does not repost the quotes on the page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverend and The Makers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn and put up on AfD From what I've seen above, I think it would meet at least one criteria listed on WP:NMG. It may not, but without the article there, there's hardly a way of knowing. Darquis 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and put up on AfD based on the info given, if it checks out, this may be notable enough, and agree that this probably is not a CsD based on music related criteria. However if it (or a substantially similar article under a different name) was previously AfD'ed then it qualifies for CsD under recreation of previously deleted content... was that the case? ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, but relist only if those sources don't check out initially. The NME claim appears to check out, so...--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hi, I am the author of the offending page. I've been asked to cite sources for my claims above, so, here I am. I'm confused - it's a simple, non-offensive page about a band who are about to break through in the UK! Anyhow, to the points raised:
  1. "Have gone on tour" - [14] - here, buy tickets for their forthcoming National UK tour. Or, perhaps you've seen them on the current crazy sell out (tickets going for £200 on eBay) Arctic Monkeys tour as the support act? Here's a BBC review of a gig they did in February - [15] - they even say "This band (Reverend and the Makers) are the ones to watch".
  2. "Been written about online and offline" - Seriously, do a Google search - you'll turn up half a dozen interviews from different sites. The NME said this about them in a recent review, 'Trust us, before long you will worship at the altar of the Reverend. Hallelujah'.
  3. "Become a prominent representative of a notable style or local scene" - the existing, unmolested, Wikipedia article for the burgeoning New Yorkshire musical scene already lists them. The NME coined this term, and used the Makers as an example of one of the bands in the 'scene'. Think back to 'scenes' like Britpop and NWONW.
  4. "Has performed music for media that is notable" - I'll admit that this is a little tenous, but their track, "Heavyweight Champion Of The World" is being used by the Sky TV production, Soccer AM, as backing music to replays of the previous weeks football action. [16]

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

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

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

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

23 April 2006

Userboxes and Userbox

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global_Resource_Bank_Initiative

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

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

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

22 April 2006

Simon Strelchik

• First
• Second
• Third

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

• It seems to me like it's a bad idea to delete something because it's a vandal target, but at the same time I understand that the presence of a bunch of POV pushers can make a proper AFD very difficult. Restore and merge seems like a very reasonable solution based on the AFDs, so I'll go with it.-Polotet 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• The second AfD was so thoroughly sock infested that any meaningful outcome was impossible. I wouldn't object to a temporary undeletion to allow a merge with Simon Strelchik becoming a redirect (I fear it will need to be protected). Thryduulf 11:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should clarify that I support Curps' actions fully, imho they are a good example of a good application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion endorsed The VaunghWatch people are a known group of vigorous POV-promoters. Any debate clean of sockpuppets has supported the deletion of similar material (there have been at least two relatively clean discussions of such content at DRV.) While not ideally-in-process, Curps action was in response to DRV precedent and reached the right result on the merits in a case where process was being deliberately undermined by a specific faction. I will support Curps' administrative discretion in this case. Xoloz 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and Merge as suggested. Numerous precedents. David | Talk 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary restore and merge per Thryduulf. I think the consensus among non-sockpuppets in the 2nd AfD (the last one with any real debate) was for merging, but given the propensity for abuse by the huge sockfarm I think leaving the history around once the merge is done will just invite endless reverts. I volunteer to perform the merge; I have no particular view pro or con Simon Strelchik and I've become familiar with the topic by now, so if it's restored, someone please let me know and I'll start merging it. Mangojuice 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, last AfD was a sockfest and my attempt to have a proper AfD was disrupted (along with the entire AfD process, thanks to the use of a miusconfigured open proxy) by a sock of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curps did the Right Thing. Just zis Guy you know? 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain this reasoning? If someone AFDs George Bush and Squidward wants to have fun with the debate we will just speedy George Bush? Kotepho 20:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, because unlike the subject of this article George Bush has succeeded in being elected to a significant office, and the article is edited by many people with no history of sockpuppet usage. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary Restore/Merge Merge with New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election , but delete the history, or the sock puppetry will get revert happy again.Darquis 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The second AFD was a sockpuppet fest -- of PROVEN sockpuppets. Kill it dead. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Calton. Ardenn 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete First AfD seems clear and relatively sockfree; and that was in March. I don't think many things are WP:POINT, but the other two nominations seem to be. Maybe it should be merged, but that decision I'll take when I can see it. Septentrionalis 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Failed candidates generally do not get their own articles, and the one claim of independent notability was not verified. Note that VaughanWatch is up to 52 sockpuppets so far, and has deteriorated into mostly making personal attacks on user talk pages. I can see no reason why Simon Strelchik should not be listed in New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and have no opinion on the best way to achieve that outcome. Thatcher131 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Besides the substantive issue of notability, which I believe attaches to major party candidates for Federal office in Canada, I am very suspicious of rapid multiple AfD nominations (WP:POINT is relevant here) followed by a speedy deletion despite very obvious lack of consensus. The votes and comments in the first and third AfDs typically showed reasoning and did not look like typical rapid, vote with no comment type puppetfests. Allegations that the discussions were invalid due to sockpuppet invasion need to be proven (e.g., CheckUser and similar tools). I don't believe there has even been a consensus to delete this or other major party candidate articles. MCB 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Checkuser was used; VaughanWatch has 52 known sockpuppets and many of them were involved in this AFD. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• As I said in the original debates, the current consensus on unelected candidates is to merge them into a single party list, because that's the best way anybody's found so far to balance the competing interpretations of notability. If VaughanWatch's known socks are discounted in this case, the consensus was clearly in favour of doing that, but it's also clear that the VaughanWatch sockpuppets aren't going to let this have an honest, undisrupted AFD (cf. Elliott Frankl, where even after a merge consensus was established they simply ignored it.) And while the merge solution isn't ideal, until we can figure out a better consensus position we're kind of stuck with it. My primary vote every time has been merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; I still stand by that. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note I recounted the first AfD, discarding the IP from Bell Canada and 2 of the 3 VaughanWatch socks. That leaves us with 5 keep, 2 merge and 3 delete. However, 2 of the keeps were predicated on being able to verify that he was a founding member of Save the children; IIRC, this was never established per WP:RS, so those votes change to merge; plus one of the keep votes changed to delete in the second AfD. That gives 2 keep, 4 merge and 4 delete. Thatcher131 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The two references are somewhat unreliable:

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

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

The AfD quotes WP:V: ""Verifiability" does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSinclair (talk • contribs) 08:12 26 April 2006 - User's 8th edit, ignoring the points made in favor of immediate Wikilawyering instead. Seems oddly familiar. --Calton (UTC)

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

Oh? Which of these did you include?

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

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

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

• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs) - Indefinitely blocked: Nineteen edits total, all related to the VaughnMess
• Munckin (talk · contribs) -Indefinitely blocked: Caught using a misconfigured open proxy while trying to expunge the third Strelchik AFD from the AFD page [19]. One of the reports on him included this warning

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

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

• Many primarily voted Keep:

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GSinclair (talk • contribs) 08:12 26 April 2006 - User's 8th edit. I'll bet you're surprised. (UTC) - User now blocked as a VaughanWatch sock.

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

• Further note: NDP Johnny (talk · contribs) was at the time a new user, who was solicited to vote on the 2nd AfD by yet another VaughnWatch sockpuppet (VWSP) CanadianElection (talk · contribs) [20]. I noticed this because GSinclair 5th and 7th edits were a solicitation to vote here, made directly under the note by the VWSP.
• Son, the general rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Just some advice. --Calton | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the block above you have, I think, conclusive proof of why Curps was right. There is simply no chance of discussing this objectively due to VaughanWatch's determination to keep this article (maybe VaughanWatch is Strelchik, who knows?) and above all his contempt for Wikipedia. This is beyond farce and well into "screw you". Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• Undelete It was obviously inappropriate for user:JzG to rule Speedy Keep on an article that he nominated for deletion, without any discussion on the AfD outside of his own contributions. The AfD was up for a only a little over an hour, and had already survived 2 AfDs. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit was less than an hour ago, at 02:48. Thirty edits, with the first 29 a series of minor, rapid-fire, and occasionally self-reverting edits. I find this a wee bit suspicious. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no stake in this. Just count the Keep votes, that's what I did. Doublesuede 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Uh huh. Less than an hour here, and you zeroed straight in on this issue, did all the research, and found exactly the right place to post your utterly unbiased results. Right. Of course. Oh, and to correct your statement, one of the AfD's this article "survived" is the one whose integrity we are discussing right now. Rhetoric teachers, we now have GFPL-licensed example of "Begging the question" for you, available right here. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User blocked indefinitely as a Vaughan sock. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Immediately semi-protect the AFD and the article. I can't make any sense of above arguements. Vandalism and sockpuppets are never a reason for deletion. --Rob 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is, however, a valid concern about a legitimate discussion taking place. The level of sockpuppetry is almost unbelievable. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion As if three afds weren't enough. At least some of the sockpuppets have been shut down. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game)

This section has become too long. The DRV discussion on this article has been moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) (second DRV). Please post all comments there. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

21 April 2006

Category:User kon

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

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

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

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

SilentHeroes

See AfD debate here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 April 2006

Cool (African philosophy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently concluded

2006 April

1. Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal Closure as redirect endorsed unanimously. 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. List of films about phantom or sentient animals Closure endorsed unanimously/kept deleted. 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Feminists Against Censorship Speedily (and unanimously) overturned and restored. 09:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Waldo's wallpaper Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth Deletion closure endorsed. 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Template:Kosovo-geo-stub Deletion closure endorsed. 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
7. HAI2U Deletion closure endorsed; no consensus on redirect created during DRV debate - take to RfD if there are objections. 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Anabasii restored [22] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[23] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [24] 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Jeniferever Deletion endorsed; however, valid recreation permitted during debate. 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Dominionist political parties Closure endorsed, kept deleted. [25] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [26] 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Mindscript - kept deleted. I don't know whether I should consider User:212.209.39.154's blanking of the undeletion notice and discussion as a withdrawal of the request to undelete, or as vandalism; but the article had no chance to be undeleted anyway. See [27]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [28] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [29] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [30] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [31] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [32] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [33] 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
21. UAAP Football Champions contested PROD speedy restored, listed at AfD. 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Suzy Sticks, history and content userfied [34] 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
23. List of themed timelines AfD, debate reopened (without prejudice) by original closer. 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
24. SSOAR, deletion endorsed unanimously. 01:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Sigave National Association, kept deleted. [35] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [36] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[37] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[38] 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China Deletion overturned. Noted at WP:CFD. 10:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
30. William Hamlet Hunt Deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI, Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: Miami and Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: New York deletion endorsed and noted at WP:CFD. Diff. 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Gateware. Deletion endorsed. Diff. 15:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Tuatafa Hori Overturned, deleted. Diff. 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
34. PIGUI Deletion overturned, article reinstated. Diff. 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
35. List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years Deletion overturned, recreated. Diff. 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Category:Subdivisions by country to Category:Administrative divisions by country relisted at WP:CFD on April 15. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT Userfied. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Switchtrack Alley Deletion endorsed, a consensus against userfication also exists. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Daniel Brandt Third and fourth afd closures endorsed, article kept. Dif for discussion here. 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Harry's Place Mistaken nomination. Nominator was confused about how to contest the tagging of the page as a speedy. Discussion moved to the article's Talk page. 12:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Template: Future tvshow Speedy undeleted as contested PROD. 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
42. SFEDI Deletion overturned, list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFEDI. [39] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [40] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [41] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [42] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [43] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [44] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [45] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [46] 04:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
51. William T. Bielby, mistaken nomination now resolved. 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Slam (band), speedy kept; lister thought {{oldafdfull}} implied article was being renominated for deletion. [47] 6:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
53. List of news aggregators, kept deleted, protected. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Joshua Wolf, kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Gigi Stone, no consensus to restore. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
56. John Law (artistic pioneer), kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
57. George Goble, made redirect. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Top Fourteen, delete closure endorsed (speedily so, after sockpuppet problems.) 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Talk:Orders of magnitude (new chains)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Orders of magnitude (chains), Talk:Orders of magnitude (chain page names), Talk:Orders of magnitude (template)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/template and Talk:Orders of magnitude (converter), speedily restored and moved to Talk:Order of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chain page names, Talk:Order of magnitude/template and Talk:Order of magnitude/converter, respectively. [48] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [49] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [50] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [51], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [52] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [53] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [54] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [55] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [56] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [57] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [58] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [59] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [60] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [61] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [62] 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, deletion reversed, listed on AFD. 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Talk:Userboxes, no consensus to restore deleted versions. 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Gilles Trehin/Gilles Tréhin, kept deleted; no consensus to restore. New discussions on possible future article at Talk:Gilles Trehin [63]15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Robert "Knox" Benfer, kept deleted. Page protected. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Bonez, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
80. 50 Bands To See Before You Die, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin1 - unanimously kept deleted. 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
82. James H. Fetzer, original speedy deletion of article upheld, recreated redirect left in place. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
83. List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Portuguese Discovery of Australia, delisted early—inappropriate for deletion review, as page version was never deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Doorknob (game), deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
86. Betty chan, kept deleted. Copy of article reposted on talk page moved to User:Snob/Betty Chan; talk page deleted per CSD G8.14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
87. Young Writers Society, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
88. Mike Murdock, deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
89. David R. Smith, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
90. Stir, deltetion overturned, relisted on AFD where there was a consensus to keep. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
91. California State Route 85, status quo maintained. 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
92. Control Monger, restored, relisted for AFD. 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
93. MPOVNSE, kept deleted. 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
94. Omar Q Beckins, kept deleted. 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
95. The Go, deletion overturned. 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
96. John Fullerton, deletion endorsed. 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
97. Imaginary antecedent kept deleted; sadly (and very surprisingly) appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia:No original research; completely unreferenced. 14:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
98. Template:People_stub restored, unprotected, listed for consideration on WP:SFD. [64] 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
99. Myg0t overturned and undeleted. 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
100. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
101. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
102. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
103. Category:Roman Catholic actors, speedy deletion reversed; relisted for further consideration at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31#Category:Roman_Catholic_actors. March 31 2006

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

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

Content review

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

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

Proposed deletions

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

History only undeletion

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

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

Decisions to be reviewed

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 November 17}}</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 17}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 November 17|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)

1 May 2006

Note: 30 April 2006 was empty

Scott Thayer

Article was brought to AfD with the argument that it was NN vanity. Discussion went along, User:W.marsh brought out links showing that he met WP:BIO in at least one area, and, by my count, two. Delete votes continued after W.marsh's assertion of notability with the same arguments as the nom, suggesting that policy was ignored by voters. The decision was question at the deleting admin's talk page [65], where he simply went with a straight vote assuming that the delete votes took into consideration the new information while reaching a consensus. I do not consider that User:Titoxd worked out of process or made a bad faith close, but I do feel an incorrect decision was made.

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

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

• Keep Deleted as written, but without prejudice against possible re-creation if he truly is notable. The article at the time of the deletion was two short sentences and a link to his personal website. The article was written by a user named Robothayer (note thayer in name), whose only contributions were to this article, making this almost certainly vanity. I'd suggest that having two lengthly debates about this two-line wonder would not be useful to Wikipedia in general. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per above. Valid decision per policy and per process. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Assuming good faith, I agree with Rossami that no evidence firmly suggest editors ignored W. Marsh's evidence, only that they chose to disagree with it. One reason this may be so is provided by Starblind: whatever one's stance on the WP:BIO, the concerns of WP:AUTO were also relevant, and may have carried more weight in editor's mind. Valid and conclusive AfD, closed without flaw in process. Xoloz 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence to suggest that WP:AUTO was weighed in the context of the debate, however, nor is WP:AUTO de facto a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted but allow re-creation. If he's notable, someone will write him an article. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete The dudes hitting #1 on Yahoo and #2 on Google.--TheMadTim 04:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ifdef

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

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

-- Omniplex 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Futuristic Sex Robotz

The full debate can be read here.

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

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

• '"Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre."'
  • One of their songs based on WoW is now slated to be on "first ever Nerdcore Compilation CD."[[66]]
  • The compilation is mentioned on "the official website for the Rec.Music.Hip-Hop Usenet newsgroup". Obviously, this is a notable and verifiable source, not to mention that it is a site dedicated mostly to mainstream hip-hop. I think if it warrants mention on there it should have a WP article.
• '"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre."'
  • The group has released 15 songs on their first full-length release and recently released one single based on the soon to be released movie and current internet phenomenon Snakes on a Plane. They even have entered the single in a contest on [[67]] to get the song included in the Snakes on a Plane soundtrack.[[68]] The song currently has 750 votes. Most songs have fewer than 100 votes with a few songs recieving 200-300 votes.
• Also, one of FCYTravis' arguments for deletion is that it has only "344 total Google hits" is irrelevant because it now gets [35,100 total hits]. I think a gain of 34756 hits in a little under 2 months is astonishing.

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

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

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

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

29 April 2006

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

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

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

Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 April 2006

The Amazing Racist

The Amazing Racist page was deleted, on the grounds, as far as I understand it, that the Amazing Racist is a non-notable person. The Deletion Talk bit is here : [69]A Google search for "Amazing Racist", quotes included, brings up 58,800 results, Yahoo about 27,800. This page [70] has had 83650 views. I've never seen the original article, but I've created a version of how I think it should look on my user page here : User:TheMadTim. The guy is a lot more notable than some of the entries here on Wikipedia. --TheMadTim 11:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

3rd go : OK. This article fulfills the criteria for inclusion thusly: This series of sketches has been included on two commercially released DVDs, produced by the National Lampoons. The DVDs are available through mainstream distributors including Amazon [71] [72] There is no set wiki policies governing the inclusion of comedy sketch routines that I am aware of. The article can easily be made in accordance with WP:V. The fact that these sketches are commercially available would normally be accepted as sufficient evidence of noteability. To borrow from WP:NMG, "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" and "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" would all point towards this sketch having the requisite degree of noteability. WP:BIO states that "Notability can be determined by: A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. As this sketch is primarily an established commercial vehicle for a comedian and his publishers to make money, this would indicate that they are not doing this for fun, it is a profitable business which relies upon it's fan base. The movies are listed on imdb here : [73] and [74]. Imdb is listed on [75] as one way of showing noteability of a subject. The comedian who performs these sketches is well known as a live performer at Comedy Store. The subject satisfies WP:V and more than satisfies WP:GT. [76] states : An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). A look at the talk page of Amazing Racist shows a number of people visiting wikipedia looking for this information, but being unable to find it. Furthrmore, the same article states "If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: 1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance". --TheMadTim 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

• For your info, it was not deleted because "it offended someone" but because it fails to establish any encyclopaedic notability, as a single sketch by a single comedian. If you want to know the kind of sketch considered independently notable, see Dead Parrot. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Err dude, isn't that sketch only in there because Monty Python sketches have their own category? It's not in wikipedia 'independently', it's in because of it's authors.--TheMadTim 11:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not here to serve as a credible source, it must be based on credible sources. See WP:NOR. Also see WP:AGF, no-one is "lying through their teeth". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

26 April 2006

Gurunath

wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurunath

I think the decision to keep was incorrect. Firstly there were 3 votes (including NOM) to delete, and 4 votes to keep. However, the 4th keep vote was put in by a confirmed sockpuppet of another voter, and it was put in 8 days after the nomination, while the AfD was supposed to end after 5 days. So technically it was a stalemate vote. Also, this article attracts little to no interest - nobody voted on this issue except users that were directly involved with the article or friends thereof. Keeping an article on an Indian name like Gurunath is like keeping an article on a Western name like Horace. It doesn't make any sense unless it's directed at someone in particular. John has 2 billion hits on google - google hits don't tell you anything about significance in relation to a name. I think that it's a strange move to keep this article on wikipedia. What is the article going to say? "Gurunath is a given name in India."?? Hamsacharya dan 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure/keep kept Fact is, there are disambiguation pages for both John and Horace, though the latter links first to the Roman poet. Disambiguation pages for common names are a common WP practice; Turnstep's closure was in keeping with this trend, as well as reflecting the reality of an evenly split opinion. However heavily the page needs to be edited, the closure has merit and should not be reversed. Xoloz 02:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure While it would have been a stalemate vote sans the sock, that only would end up with a no consensus (which I think should have been the result regardless). And in the case of no consensus, the article should default to keep, lacking a clearly noted violation of Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines Darquis
• Endorse closure/keep kept. Even if the votes were a tie, no consensus = keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Darquis and Xaosflux. --David.Mestel 05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per Darquis and Xaosflux. --CTSWyneken 13:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. Thought article was quite informative, and didn't break any policies. Stephen B Streater 13:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Without the sockpuppet it would be no-consensus, and no consenus means we default to keep. JoshuaZ 22:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Avillia/CVU_Politics

In a current RfC, I am contesting the first deletion of the page as administrative abuse. A administrator who read the RfC restored the page until a consensus was gained on RfC. It was deleted again by the friend of the subject of the RfC, and I recreated it per recommendations from people including the restoring administrator. Tawker, the administrator who first deleted it, has subsequently deleted it once again and protected it. Until there is a consensus at RfC (Hopefully one not made up by friends of the accused, cough), I'm requesting the page is reinstated. If the RfC continued along it's current path and no one dissents, then delete at will. --Avillia_{(RfC vs CVU) 01:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

• The page was restored by an admin mistakenly; see the relevant discussion on the administrator's incidents noticeboard, where he states "Gah, I've screwed up now. I did it on the advice of another user, reactionarily, before looking at all the facts. Now that I see there was lengthy discussion on it (he did not tell me this) I feel like a total douche. :(". Since the page was deleted as a violation of users' privacy, channel policy, common etiquette, and copyright laws, it would make more sense to keep it deleted until the request for comment can decide either way. Note, also, that the relevant request for comment is decidely against publicly posting private IRC logs thus far. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that so far, the only people who have weighted in are decidedly Pro-CVU or members of CVU theirselves. Note also that the channel policy was just created to stop me from discussion. Note that the copyright law has a nice section for 'fair use', if one could even argue as to the copyright ownership. Also, note that common etiquette seems like a oxymoron when I had a page 'violating the privacy' of users in a page directed at the same, just to be targetted for extensive abuse by the magical cabal. --Avillia (RfC vs CVU) 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm anti-cvu, ant not a member of it. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted. As Pathoschild says above, it's a "violation of users' privacy, channel policy, common etiquette, and copyright laws". Note that I have no "association" with the CVU whatsoever aside from knowing of it's existance, nor do I hold virtually any opinion on the group either way.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment could someone describe the page, as it is impossible to comment on this without knowing content. Were they of a public channel? Which? Private messages? Which RFC? I'm going to guess the one linked in her sig. How do they pertain to that RFC? Claiming copyright on irc logs seems spurious at best as it depends on what country, etc. Was this page created and posted before the rule was added on 04:50, 25 April 2006? Kotepho 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The logs were taken from #vandalism-en-wp on Freenode, which requires confirmation to join. The channel policy did not explicitly prohibit public logging for the same reason it doesn't explicitly prohibit stalking, warez, or posting personal information— it was considered so obvious that it need not be stated. To confirm this popular opinion, see comments from uninvolved users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TawkerPathosEssjay, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IRC_logs_deletion_and_wheel_waring, and in this discussion, as well as text on m:IRC channels and Freenode's channel guidelines. It has since been modified to explicitly state this obvious detail. If you wish, I see no problem restoring the page without the logs for this discussion; there is plenty of non-log content. // [admin] Pathoschild(^talk/_map) 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. It is not an 'official' wikipedia channel though right? I can see how someone might not know about the policy or might not think it applies. Since it was a private channel, I will agree that it is against "common etiquette" to repost logs without permission, but the instances I saw were not particularly egregious. Still I am not sure why someone had to delete the page. Would not most people's concerns be dealt with by editing them out and anyone else's by deleting them from history? Deleting the page outright seems rather rash. Kotepho 05:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, keep deleted, delete again if necessary In at least some jurisdictions, it's illegal on privacy grounds to even make chat logs, much less publish them [77]. I posted to WT:CSD suggesting that privacy vios (in general) be included on the list of speedy deletion criteria--it's pretty obvious, but it's not listed explicitly at the moment. Per Pathoschild/s, restoring some version with no logs should be ok. Note: I'm not associated with CVU. Phr 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just restored the page without the private logs, since it is the posting of private logs that is at issue and not the page itself. See User:Avillia/CVU_Politics. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted(edit conflict with Pathos' announcement) per Phr and Pathoschild, and, no, I'm not involved with CVU either. If someone wants it restored without the logs, that seems ok. JoshuaZ 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore: the full chat logs are no longer on the page, so there is obviously nothing wrong with it now. --David.Mestel 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - page is now up, so is it really a matter of "restoring"? Anyhow, undelete conditionally, that the logs stayy off the page. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:36 UTC (2006-04-27)
• Allow to keep undeleted conditionally as long as the logs are gone (preferably the diffs deleted so that way only admins can see them) and he does not repost the quotes on the page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverend and The Makers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn and put up on AfD From what I've seen above, I think it would meet at least one criteria listed on WP:NMG. It may not, but without the article there, there's hardly a way of knowing. Darquis 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and put up on AfD based on the info given, if it checks out, this may be notable enough, and agree that this probably is not a CsD based on music related criteria. However if it (or a substantially similar article under a different name) was previously AfD'ed then it qualifies for CsD under recreation of previously deleted content... was that the case? ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, but relist only if those sources don't check out initially. The NME claim appears to check out, so...--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hi, I am the author of the offending page. I've been asked to cite sources for my claims above, so, here I am. I'm confused - it's a simple, non-offensive page about a band who are about to break through in the UK! Anyhow, to the points raised:
  1. "Have gone on tour" - [78] - here, buy tickets for their forthcoming National UK tour. Or, perhaps you've seen them on the current crazy sell out (tickets going for £200 on eBay) Arctic Monkeys tour as the support act? Here's a BBC review of a gig they did in February - [79] - they even say "This band (Reverend and the Makers) are the ones to watch".
  2. "Been written about online and offline" - Seriously, do a Google search - you'll turn up half a dozen interviews from different sites. The NME said this about them in a recent review, 'Trust us, before long you will worship at the altar of the Reverend. Hallelujah'.
  3. "Become a prominent representative of a notable style or local scene" - the existing, unmolested, Wikipedia article for the burgeoning New Yorkshire musical scene already lists them. The NME coined this term, and used the Makers as an example of one of the bands in the 'scene'. Think back to 'scenes' like Britpop and NWONW.
  4. "Has performed music for media that is notable" - I'll admit that this is a little tenous, but their track, "Heavyweight Champion Of The World" is being used by the Sky TV production, Soccer AM, as backing music to replays of the previous weeks football action. [80]

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

  • Comment: Regarding you statement "Seriously, do a Google search". Actually, when you make the article, you should have done that, and cited every single reliable source you could. Never assume people will look up missing information, outside the article. It's basically up to you to include relevant material. So, if/when the article is undeleted, be sure to include it. While anybody can do a google search, not all results are useful. Some are just promotional and self-written. It's really up to the article author, to pick out the high quality ones, and include them in the article. While I criticized the deletion of this article, I am certain, that if the article had the relevant information, it would never have been deleted. --Rob 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care overmuch, happy to have it listed on AfD. More effort seems to have gone into pleading the case than went into the article, which is always a bit frustrating. But do note again the comment made by the creator that the band are about to break through in the UK. That was how I read it, too. Bands which are "about to break through" very often don't. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete add the cites. Put on AfD if it still looks dodgy. They're not the only ones to leave the cites for later and get deleted in between. Perhaps the author should have read Wikipedia:Why should I care? first - an easy mistake to make. Stephen B Streater 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Having spot-checked the deleted versions, this certainly seems to have qualified under speedy-delete criterion A7 since the article itself made no claim to notability that I found. Send it to AFD as a disputed speedy-deletion but I'm skeptical about its chances. Some real evidence will have to be presented that this is more than the garage band that the article made it seem. Remember that we don't cover bands that are about to break thru - we cover bands that have broken thru. Rossami (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, a number of criteria in WP:MUSIC are written specifically to include bands lacking mainstream commercial success. Notability<>fame+sales, necessarily. --Rob 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ...but there's no rush. I fully agree with you, but I think the "notability without commercial impact" thing needs to be evaluated by the good old fashioned "test of time". --kingboyk 07:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
      • "there's no rush" is not what a wiki is about (that's more of a Britanica approach). Also, the test we will evaluate the article by is WP:MUSIC, which, if the creator's claims can be substantiated, the article will pass. --Rob 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Disagree, sorry. There are differing opinions of what wiki is about. Being up-to-the-second up-to-date is not necessarily one of them. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Request: If admins wish to wait the full week before removing "protected deleted" status, can I suggest its undeleted immediately, but to a user-subpage of the creator. That way, he can fix it up properly (maybe get some feedback), before its put back in article space, hopefully avoiding the need for re-deletion. There's no point in AFD voters wasting their time evaluating the old version, if its going to be substantially changed shortly. --Rob 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• List at AFD (where I shall recommend Delete) As a popular music buff, I'm usually quite lenient on band articles. However, having the luxury of being able to look at the article, it's main claim to notability is that the band are touring as support to the currently very fashionable Arctic Monkeys. They don't even have a record deal. I think at a bare minimum a new band ought to have a record deal to be notable. (There are of course exceptions, such as when the members are already notable, or historical bands who became notable through later activities of their members or some other reasons.) --kingboyk 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Changed from keep deleted to relist. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is DRV, not AFD. So, the issue is whether the article qualified for a speedy under a7. A claim was made. If you contest it, you should take up the matter on an AFD. You said "it's main claim to notability is...". Hence, you have conceded the speedy was invalid, since you conceded a claim was made. The rest of your sentence will be relevant at the AFD. It is fundamentally wrong for admins to ignore policy, and remove content, without community consensus. --Rob 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, you got me on this one. I was thinking about this in bed last night (sad I know!) and I realised I'd snookered myself somewhat on this point. You're absolutely right. I wouldn't have speedy deleted it. I will therefore amend my recommendation. --kingboyk 07:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. No need to relist as even the original version of the article indicates that the group passes WP:MUSIC by virtue of its verifiable national tour gigs. Those who have speedy-deleted this article in the past don't seem to have conducted any research (which would have confirmed the assertion of notability in the original article) but rather assumed that their own ignorance was an indication that the article should be deleted. Articles about bands should not in general be speedy deleted where they contain such assertions of notability, Nor should they be listed for deletion where, as in this case, research turns up evidence to confirm the assertion. The Reverend and his band have supported sellout gigs featuring the hugely popular Sheffield band Arctic Monkeys [81] (BBC) and have been confirmed as main support band for the Monkeys' upcoming tour [82] (NME), and you can buy tickets for some of their April-June gigs online through ticketweb. --Tony Sidaway 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

23 April 2006

Userboxes and Userbox

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global_Resource_Bank_Initiative

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

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

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

22 April 2006

Simon Strelchik

• First
• Second
• Third

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

• It seems to me like it's a bad idea to delete something because it's a vandal target, but at the same time I understand that the presence of a bunch of POV pushers can make a proper AFD very difficult. Restore and merge seems like a very reasonable solution based on the AFDs, so I'll go with it.-Polotet 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• The second AfD was so thoroughly sock infested that any meaningful outcome was impossible. I wouldn't object to a temporary undeletion to allow a merge with Simon Strelchik becoming a redirect (I fear it will need to be protected). Thryduulf 11:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I should clarify that I support Curps' actions fully, imho they are a good example of a good application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion endorsed The VaunghWatch people are a known group of vigorous POV-promoters. Any debate clean of sockpuppets has supported the deletion of similar material (there have been at least two relatively clean discussions of such content at DRV.) While not ideally-in-process, Curps action was in response to DRV precedent and reached the right result on the merits in a case where process was being deliberately undermined by a specific faction. I will support Curps' administrative discretion in this case. Xoloz 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and Merge as suggested. Numerous precedents. David | Talk 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary restore and merge per Thryduulf. I think the consensus among non-sockpuppets in the 2nd AfD (the last one with any real debate) was for merging, but given the propensity for abuse by the huge sockfarm I think leaving the history around once the merge is done will just invite endless reverts. I volunteer to perform the merge; I have no particular view pro or con Simon Strelchik and I've become familiar with the topic by now, so if it's restored, someone please let me know and I'll start merging it. Mangojuice 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy, last AfD was a sockfest and my attempt to have a proper AfD was disrupted (along with the entire AfD process, thanks to the use of a miusconfigured open proxy) by a sock of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curps did the Right Thing. Just zis Guy you know? 20:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain this reasoning? If someone AFDs George Bush and Squidward wants to have fun with the debate we will just speedy George Bush? Kotepho 20:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, because unlike the subject of this article George Bush has succeeded in being elected to a significant office, and the article is edited by many people with no history of sockpuppet usage. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Temporary Restore/Merge Merge with New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election , but delete the history, or the sock puppetry will get revert happy again.Darquis 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The second AFD was a sockpuppet fest -- of PROVEN sockpuppets. Kill it dead. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Calton. Ardenn 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete First AfD seems clear and relatively sockfree; and that was in March. I don't think many things are WP:POINT, but the other two nominations seem to be. Maybe it should be merged, but that decision I'll take when I can see it. Septentrionalis 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Failed candidates generally do not get their own articles, and the one claim of independent notability was not verified. Note that VaughanWatch is up to 52 sockpuppets so far, and has deteriorated into mostly making personal attacks on user talk pages. I can see no reason why Simon Strelchik should not be listed in New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and have no opinion on the best way to achieve that outcome. Thatcher131 14:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Besides the substantive issue of notability, which I believe attaches to major party candidates for Federal office in Canada, I am very suspicious of rapid multiple AfD nominations (WP:POINT is relevant here) followed by a speedy deletion despite very obvious lack of consensus. The votes and comments in the first and third AfDs typically showed reasoning and did not look like typical rapid, vote with no comment type puppetfests. Allegations that the discussions were invalid due to sockpuppet invasion need to be proven (e.g., CheckUser and similar tools). I don't believe there has even been a consensus to delete this or other major party candidate articles. MCB 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Checkuser was used; VaughanWatch has 52 known sockpuppets and many of them were involved in this AFD. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• As I said in the original debates, the current consensus on unelected candidates is to merge them into a single party list, because that's the best way anybody's found so far to balance the competing interpretations of notability. If VaughanWatch's known socks are discounted in this case, the consensus was clearly in favour of doing that, but it's also clear that the VaughanWatch sockpuppets aren't going to let this have an honest, undisrupted AFD (cf. Elliott Frankl, where even after a merge consensus was established they simply ignored it.) And while the merge solution isn't ideal, until we can figure out a better consensus position we're kind of stuck with it. My primary vote every time has been merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; I still stand by that. Bearcat 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note I recounted the first AfD, discarding the IP from Bell Canada and 2 of the 3 VaughanWatch socks. That leaves us with 5 keep, 2 merge and 3 delete. However, 2 of the keeps were predicated on being able to verify that he was a founding member of Save the children; IIRC, this was never established per WP:RS, so those votes change to merge; plus one of the keep votes changed to delete in the second AfD. That gives 2 keep, 4 merge and 4 delete. Thatcher131 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The two references are somewhat unreliable:

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

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

The AfD quotes WP:V: ""Verifiability" does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSinclair (talk • contribs) 08:12 26 April 2006 - User's 8th edit, ignoring the points made in favor of immediate Wikilawyering instead. Seems oddly familiar. --Calton (UTC)

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

Oh? Which of these did you include?

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

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

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

• CasanovaAlive (talk · contribs) - Indefinitely blocked: Nineteen edits total, all related to the VaughnMess
• Munckin (talk · contribs) -Indefinitely blocked: Caught using a misconfigured open proxy while trying to expunge the third Strelchik AFD from the AFD page [83]. One of the reports on him included this warning

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

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

• Many primarily voted Keep:

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GSinclair (talk • contribs) 08:12 26 April 2006 - User's 8th edit. I'll bet you're surprised. (UTC) - User now blocked as a VaughanWatch sock.

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

• Further note: NDP Johnny (talk · contribs) was at the time a new user, who was solicited to vote on the 2nd AfD by yet another VaughnWatch sockpuppet (VWSP) CanadianElection (talk · contribs) [84]. I noticed this because GSinclair 5th and 7th edits were a solicitation to vote here, made directly under the note by the VWSP.
• Son, the general rule of thumb when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Just some advice. --Calton | Talk 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the block above you have, I think, conclusive proof of why Curps was right. There is simply no chance of discussing this objectively due to VaughanWatch's determination to keep this article (maybe VaughanWatch is Strelchik, who knows?) and above all his contempt for Wikipedia. This is beyond farce and well into "screw you". Just zis Guy you know? 10:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• Undelete It was obviously inappropriate for user:JzG to rule Speedy Keep on an article that he nominated for deletion, without any discussion on the AfD outside of his own contributions. The AfD was up for a only a little over an hour, and had already survived 2 AfDs. Doublesuede 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first edit was less than an hour ago, at 02:48. Thirty edits, with the first 29 a series of minor, rapid-fire, and occasionally self-reverting edits. I find this a wee bit suspicious. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no stake in this. Just count the Keep votes, that's what I did. Doublesuede 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Uh huh. Less than an hour here, and you zeroed straight in on this issue, did all the research, and found exactly the right place to post your utterly unbiased results. Right. Of course. Oh, and to correct your statement, one of the AfD's this article "survived" is the one whose integrity we are discussing right now. Rhetoric teachers, we now have GFPL-licensed example of "Begging the question" for you, available right here. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User blocked indefinitely as a Vaughan sock. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Immediately semi-protect the AFD and the article. I can't make any sense of above arguements. Vandalism and sockpuppets are never a reason for deletion. --Rob 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is, however, a valid concern about a legitimate discussion taking place. The level of sockpuppetry is almost unbelievable. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion As if three afds weren't enough. At least some of the sockpuppets have been shut down. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game)

This section has become too long. The DRV discussion on this article has been moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Game (game) (second DRV). Please post all comments there. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

21 April 2006

Category:User kon

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

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

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

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

SilentHeroes

See AfD debate here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 April 2006

Cool (African philosophy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn and delete (1) Out of 29 votes, only 6 voted for "keep". (2)Article is a POV fork & original research (3) There is no need to keep two articles with the same content. Deeceevoice admitted that she already created African aesthetic with the informations from Cool (African philosophy) "The information from "Cool (African philosophy)" is now it in its proper context, in an article on dealing with the underlying cultural ethos of many traditional African societies. ... Further, I intend to use additional information from this article (in addition to the material that was gutted from it) to continue build the framework for "African aesthetic." (Deeceevoice) [85] CoYep 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I could not make heads or tails of this AFD debate. It was refactored, discussed on the article's talk page, the talk page of the AFD. Deeceevoice was arguing for merging then for keeping. If the content is going to be in African aesthetic we should at least keep the history (redirect/history merge). Kotepho 01:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Lots of confusion and acrimonious discussion on this one here, at the AfD, and on the talk page. A fairly large number of people who seem extraordinarily virulent about wanting to delete this. This is exactly what a no consensus keep-by-default AfD conclusion should be. Flag it with a tag if you think it needs one, let things quiet down, edit it as need be, and revisit in some months once everyone is calm again. Whatever good encyclopaedic content there is (and I have not read it in enough detail to have an opinion on that), let's give it a chance and let's see what it leads to. There is no need to rush. Martinp 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC), who voted No-consensus-keep, which I guess is one of the so-called "unconvincing" keep votes that Proto refers to.
• Endorse closure JoshuaZ 02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per Proto et al. Tasteless Humor Comment (no extra charge): Does FrancisTyers' comment above mean that clowns having sex while on parade in Africa would be cool? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure noting of course that there's nothing to stop anyone performing a merge if they can obtain consensus to do so. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Can I just point out that there is no content other than a redirect in the history of this article. We're arguing about an empty URL. All the content has been moved, not cut-and-pasted, but moved, history and all, to Cool (African aesthetic). It happened on April 17, before this discussion began. So... we're actually discussing what to do with that article, or what are we actually discussing here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is a remnant of a very messy series of creations, recreations, deletions, moves, and redirects. The important thing is that the content is now at African aesthetic, having been duly restored following a recent Review. Cool (African philosophy) is currently a (recreated) redirect to African aesthetic; it was previously a redirect to Cool (African aesthetic), which is a page that was created when the content of Cool (African philosophy) was moved there. Cool (African aesthetic) is itself now a redirect, to Cool (aesthetic), which is a page with different content than the text here under dispute. I propose the following:
  • Delete Cool (African philosophy), for the following reasons: 1. It is a poor redirect, as no one searching for the content at African aesthetic is likely to type into the search box "Cool_(African philosophy)". 2. The history of the page relevant to the content at African aesthetic is not anymore at Cool (African philosophy) but at Cool (African aesthetic), where it had earlier been moved. The only history at Cool (African philosophy) is the revert war over which way the page should redirect. This is only important if the redirect itself is preserved; it is of no consequence if the page is deleted. There is no GFDL textual content of any kind anymore in the logs of Cool (African philosophy), and therefore absolutely nothing in Cool (African philosophy) that could be merged into African aesthetic (or, for that matter, that could possibly be merged into any other page). I must wonder whether the few individuals above who speak of merges from this page have actually read it. What is mergeworthy from here?
  • Redirect Cool (African aesthetic) to African aesthetic. The history preserved in the former is the early version of the text now at the latter (the latter does not record that because it seems to be a copy paste of one version of the text done during the deletion/recreation circus). Cool (aesthetic) is a different article. The sole use of Cool (African aesthetic) is as a placeholder for the history logs containing GFDL text now found at African aesthetic. Regards —Encephalon 20:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC) NB. I wrote this, and could have sworn seeing it posted, some 20 hours ago.
• Good idea, Encephalon. Of course, at that point, there's no reason not to do a history merge, and get the whole history over at African aesthetic. I'm willing to do the legwork if we can agree that's the solution. It certainly makes sense to me to decide which two articles are going to exist, get the histories there, and make everything else either a redirect or gone. I recommend delete Cool (African philosophy) (in all its no-content, no-history glory), merge history from Cool (African aesthetic) to African aesthetic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Recently concluded

2006 April

1. Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal Closure as redirect endorsed unanimously. 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
2. List of films about phantom or sentient animals Closure endorsed unanimously/kept deleted. 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Feminists Against Censorship Speedily (and unanimously) overturned and restored. 09:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Waldo's wallpaper Deletion closure endorsed unanimously. 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth Deletion closure endorsed. 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Template:Kosovo-geo-stub Deletion closure endorsed. 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
7. HAI2U Deletion closure endorsed; no consensus on redirect created during DRV debate - take to RfD if there are objections. 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Anabasii restored [86] 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Image:O RLY.jpg, kept deleted per advise of Wikimedia Foundation attorney, poor fair use claim.[87] 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Image talk:Autofellatio.jpg/March 22 IfD Restored for proper archiving [88] 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Jeniferever Deletion endorsed; however, valid recreation permitted during debate. 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Dominionist political parties Closure endorsed, kept deleted. [89] 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Bullshido.net Relisted at AFD, speedy deletion was perhaps out of process. [90] 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Mindscript - kept deleted. I don't know whether I should consider User:212.209.39.154's blanking of the undeletion notice and discussion as a withdrawal of the request to undelete, or as vandalism; but the article had no chance to be undeleted anyway. See [91]. - 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Bullshido Kept, article exists, not a DRV question. [92] 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
16. Fred Moss Kept deleted, page protected. [93] 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Angry Aryans Restored, sent to afd. [94] 06:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
18. 1313 Mockingbird Lane Kept deleted. [95] 05:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
19. Dis-Connection Kept deleted. [96] 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
20. Schism Tracker Kept deleted. [97] 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
21. UAAP Football Champions contested PROD speedy restored, listed at AfD. 00:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
22. Suzy Sticks, history and content userfied [98] 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
23. List of themed timelines AfD, debate reopened (without prejudice) by original closer. 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
24. SSOAR, deletion endorsed unanimously. 01:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
25. Sigave National Association, kept deleted. [99] 12:14, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
26. Sinagogue of Satan, kept deleted. [100] 11:39, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
27. Steve Reich (Army), kept deleted.[101] 11:32, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
28. African aesthetic, deletion overturned. Article restored without AFD relist.[102] 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
29. Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China Deletion overturned. Noted at WP:CFD. 10:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
30. William Hamlet Hunt Deletion endorsed unanimously. 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
31. Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI, Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: Miami and Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: New York deletion endorsed and noted at WP:CFD. Diff. 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
32. Gateware. Deletion endorsed. Diff. 15:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
33. Tuatafa Hori Overturned, deleted. Diff. 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
34. PIGUI Deletion overturned, article reinstated. Diff. 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
35. List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years Deletion overturned, recreated. Diff. 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
36. Category:Subdivisions by country to Category:Administrative divisions by country relisted at WP:CFD on April 15. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
37. Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT Userfied. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
38. Switchtrack Alley Deletion endorsed, a consensus against userfication also exists. Diff. 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
39. Daniel Brandt Third and fourth afd closures endorsed, article kept. Dif for discussion here. 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
40. Harry's Place Mistaken nomination. Nominator was confused about how to contest the tagging of the page as a speedy. Discussion moved to the article's Talk page. 12:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
41. Template: Future tvshow Speedy undeleted as contested PROD. 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
42. SFEDI Deletion overturned, list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFEDI. [103] 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
43. Evan Lee Dahl Kept deleted. [104] 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
44. Kat Shoob Kept deleted. Page protected. [105] 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
45. Template:No Crusade Kept deleted. [106] 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
46. Cleveland steamer Closure endorsed, article kept. [107] 09:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
47. Dances of Detroit - kept deleted. [108] 09:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
48. Rikki Lee Travolta - kept deleted. [109] 09:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
49. Starfield - contested speedy deletion overturned. 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
50. Mylifeoftravel.com - kept deleted. [110] 04:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
51. William T. Bielby, mistaken nomination now resolved. 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
52. Slam (band), speedy kept; lister thought {{oldafdfull}} implied article was being renominated for deletion. [111] 6:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
53. List of news aggregators, kept deleted, protected. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
54. Joshua Wolf, kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
55. Gigi Stone, no consensus to restore. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
56. John Law (artistic pioneer), kept deleted. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
57. George Goble, made redirect. 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
58. Top Fourteen, delete closure endorsed (speedily so, after sockpuppet problems.) 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
59. Talk:Orders of magnitude (new chains)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Orders of magnitude (chains), Talk:Orders of magnitude (chain page names), Talk:Orders of magnitude (template)/Talk:Orders of magnitude/template and Talk:Orders of magnitude (converter), speedily restored and moved to Talk:Order of magnitude/new chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chains, Talk:Order of magnitude/chain page names, Talk:Order of magnitude/template and Talk:Order of magnitude/converter, respectively. [112] 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
60. John Scherer, stub recreated, listed on AFD, failed, deleted. [113] 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
61. Alien 5 (rumoured movie), deletion overturned, article listed on AFD. [114] 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
62. Template:Wdefcon, speedy restore uncontested by deletor, delisted [115], 02:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
63. Jainism and Judaism, restored as contested PROD. 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
64. Grophland kept deleted. [116] 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
65. List of people compared to Bob Dylan closure (merge) endorsed. [117] 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
66. RO...UU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:RO...U!/GOP criminal kept deleted. [118] 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
67. Buxton University consensus is to allow re-creation of this already-existing article. [119] 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
68. Template:Good article kept deleted. [120] 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
69. Elliott Frankl kept deleted. Page protected. [121] 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
70. Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews kept deleted. [122] 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
71. Islamophilia kept deleted. Page protected. [123] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
72. Jerry Taylor kept deleted. Page protected. [124] 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
73. The Game (game) kept deleted. Page protected. [125] 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
74. Userboxes, page exists as a redirect. [126] 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
75. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, deletion reversed, listed on AFD. 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
76. Talk:Userboxes, no consensus to restore deleted versions. 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
77. Gilles Trehin/Gilles Tréhin, kept deleted; no consensus to restore. New discussions on possible future article at Talk:Gilles Trehin [127]15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
78. Robert "Knox" Benfer, kept deleted. Page protected. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
79. Bonez, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
80. 50 Bands To See Before You Die, kept deleted. 14:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
81. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlimVirgin1 - unanimously kept deleted. 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
82. James H. Fetzer, original speedy deletion of article upheld, recreated redirect left in place. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
83. List of TRACS members, keep result overturned, article deleted. 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
84. Portuguese Discovery of Australia, delisted early—inappropriate for deletion review, as page version was never deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
85. Doorknob (game), deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
86. Betty chan, kept deleted. Copy of article reposted on talk page moved to User:Snob/Betty Chan; talk page deleted per CSD G8.14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
87. Young Writers Society, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
88. Mike Murdock, deletion overturned, listed on AFD. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
89. David R. Smith, kept deleted. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
90. Stir, deltetion overturned, relisted on AFD where there was a consensus to keep. 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
91. California State Route 85, status quo maintained. 13:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
92. Control Monger, restored, relisted for AFD. 22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
93. MPOVNSE, kept deleted. 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
94. Omar Q Beckins, kept deleted. 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
95. The Go, deletion overturned. 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
96. John Fullerton, deletion endorsed. 14:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
97. Imaginary antecedent kept deleted; sadly (and very surprisingly) appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia:No original research; completely unreferenced. 14:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
98. Template:People_stub restored, unprotected, listed for consideration on WP:SFD. [128] 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
99. Myg0t overturned and undeleted. 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
100. Innatheism close endorsed, kept deleted. 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
101. Wikipedia:Requests for Seppuku kept deleted in WP space. (A version remains in Jaranda's userspace). 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
102. Third culture status quo maintained. 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
103. Category:Roman Catholic actors, speedy deletion reversed; relisted for further consideration at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_31#Category:Roman_Catholic_actors. March 31 2006